Theodosian empresses: women and imperial dominion in late antiquity 9780520041622, 9780520909700, 9780520068018

Table of contents :
Frontmatter (page N/A)
List of Illustrations (page ix)
List of Abbreviations (page xi)
Acknowledgments (page xiii)
Introduction (page 1)
Chapter I Theodosius the Great and His Women (page 6)
Chapter II Aelia Eudoxia Augusta (page 48)
Chapter III Aelia Pulcheria Augusta (page 79)
Chapter IV Aelia Eudocia Augusta, The Athenian Maid, Pulcheria's Special Resources (page 112)
Chapter V The Controversy Over the Mother of God (page 147)
Chapter VI Two Empresses Who Refused to be One (page 175)
Chapter VII From Dominion to Sainthood (page 217)
Bibliography (page 230)
Index (page 245)

Citation preview

° , . ; f ..

.ia”gee aBe‘apnea . . % . : oe t 4 ; : . afa,a ;" oe ian— : : _— iq ~ |F: »ft ie a mecha ee, ey swe ';i mm: heey

i J ; ! Ei ‘i cae : i f Bi . 4 : ae,“4ioef'« q. j ji5i 1aR i q7i iia 7, i i i j ,1 i 4fs : j ir1 Fi ct EF 5nt ene ,\ ci, : i f oe ; : 4 on sneanmnjastuonnmsagee eae eee weg ee 7 1 St tra t fh ae 7

et |“ni 1 1i ,aaie iE*, {1 inri) by, i yf , qae ; fjqaama i. 4PY , i #4 : . ta ;jlFiie | :ae |.il ai, 4{ian ef | s, i Dg 7: Hh aoot; i14|*i4i|d| aichi Wl i Oe i —_— | i ae | y | " y H | t ~~. 3 j ia |S ? 7b 1 4 ' 1H on iJ o. | f fy a i a§||

we , ad | se ee cl. on 2 ‘f, * rd wae” Obalge A 7lk:ae i 7" . ">i fh | rali. ;aiib"YW emer ""rl‘i arenal Pn buen fede oz

: i be , .i, Poe 7 aa a, slaoe. nni FY ae aaei 4a * a EEE a oer 1 YiTP i Hae

3 EES f, ea . sisi ren iy peewee eae igi ayy allie its jos aay if i " . :| 4% cee |Ps4i iiqjmo, '|fay dé it |,oot if iigsa 4aala |_5, i,ci,. ss meaom H ciq]ae! ob, Rae i!i ee, hme, At 7|i,{H ;ii,"iasty i I. ~ PACES Founded”

L f.. -- PROPONTIS

AS / fet :

Theodosian Constantinople, 380-453 Place-names like Aurelianat and ta Antiochou represent quarters of medieval Constantinople that received nomenclature from the palatial domds of members of the Theodosian house or of officials in its service. The distribution of such names across the urban landscape of Constantinople indicates the manner in which the dynasty dominated the imperial city.

Theodosius and His Women « 13 Bright arrayed for war, your splendid mount Lightly rein, great spirit, although he rage.”3

Nearby a tall column went up, carved in spiral with reliefs commemorating the victories of Theodosius. This monument and its setting repeated Trajan’s column and forum in Rome, showing that Theodosius, whose Spanish origins and military ambitions made Trajan an inescapable model,?4 indeed considered Constantinople to be Rome’s double, a fitting seat for the new dynasty. The emperor’s presence in Constantinople implied the permanent residence there of the comitatus, the apparatus of central government with its assortment of meagistri militum and other military and civilian officials.2> Most powerful among the latter was the praefectus praetorto per Orientem, who headed the hierarchy of diocesan vicars and provincial governots charged with the administration of justice and collection of the revenues (awnonae) that fed and supplied the army and civil service. From the time of Theodosius I, the broad responsibilities of the praetorian prefect and his constant access to the emperor made him virtually a prime minister. Other financial officers of the comztatus wete the comes rerum privatarum, minister of the vast estates and private revenues of the emperor, and the comes sacrarum Jargttionum, whose subordinates collected money taxes and duties, supervised the mints and other imperial workshops, and paid out salartes and donatives to civil servants and troops. The magister officiorum regulated admissions to the emperor’s presence and administered the bodies of clerks who handled the emperor’s correspondence and files

(scrinia), while the guaestor sacri palatit served as his chief legal adviser. Finally, since 359 emperors had ruled Constantinople through the praefectus urbi constantinopoltitanae, the double of the prefect of

Rome who presided over the eastern senate. If Theodosius’ city was to become Second Rome, Themistius had insisted, he ought to give high office to members of this body, the senate of Constantinople. After decades of recruiting, the senate now included many ambitious men who exhibited the traditional qualifications—large fortunes or family estates that produced gener23. Anth. graec. 16. 65; cf. Kollwitz, Plastik, pp. 6-11, and esp. E. Kantorowicz, ‘‘Oriens Augusti: Lever du Roi,’’ DOP 17 (1963), 119-77, for the ideological context.

24. E.g., Them. Or. 16. 205a, 19. 229c, Epit. de Caes. 48. 8. 25. See esp. A.H.M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire 284-602 (Oxford, 1964), I, 366-410.

14» Theodosian Empresses

ous incomes; a modicum of administrative experience, at a level conferring the required rank of clarisstmus; and the ornaments of culture or ‘‘Hellenism’’ acquired through an education in Greek rhetoric.26 Because ‘‘Hellenism’’ frequently extended from culture to religion, three generations into the Christian Empire numerous pagans still sat in the senate of Constantinople.?’ Theodostus could not afford to ignore the claims of such men, so throughout his reign he allocated provincial governorships and the city prefecture to senators of Constantinople and other easterners, as

Themistius had recommended. Themistius himself held the city prefecture briefly in 384, but two other appointments are more instructive. In 388, as Theodosius prepared to march westward against Maximus, he promoted a Lycian named Proculus to the city prefecture and simultaneously made Proculus’ father, Flavius Eutolmius Tatianus,

praetorian prefect of the East.28 Both men had compiled distinguished records in lesser posts, and both were pagans. Tatianus possessed sufficient culture to compose a verse sequel to the kad which won ptaise from students and teachers of rhetoric.2? During their prefectures, Proculus and Tatianus demonstrated the same com-

mitment to dynastic legitimacy that Themistius had expressed on many occasions. In 390 Proculus erected the great obelisk of Theodosius in the hippodrome of Constantinople. A verse. inscription on its base (which still survives) celebrated the emperor’s spectacular ‘‘victory’’ over this intractable granite monolith (in successfully having it raised) and drew a parallel with his battlefield success over Maximus the ‘‘tyrant.’’3° In the same year Tatianus carried similar propaganda to the provinces, ordering that statues of the legitimate

emperots be dedicated in various cities of the East; L. Robert has identified examples in inscriptions from Antinoupolis in Egypt, from 26. Ep. Constanti Augusti ad Senatum 19c (Themistii Orationes, ed. G. Downey and A.F. Norman, III, 123-24); cf. Dagron, Natssance, pp. 119-210, the fullest recent treatment of the eastern senate. 27. For a sampling see P. Petit, ‘‘Les sénateurs de Constantinople dans !’oeuvre de Libanius,’’ Amtiguité classique 26 (1927), 347-82. 28. PLRE, I, 746-47, ‘‘Proculus 6,’’ 876-78, ‘‘Tatianus 5.’’

29. Liban. Eo. 990. 2-3 (XI, 120-21 Foerster); Eudocia Homerocentones praef. 19-29 (ed. A. Ludwich, pp. 84-85). 30. Bruns, Obelisk, passim; esp. H. Wrede, ‘‘Zur Errichtung des TheodosiusObelisken in Istanbul,’’ Istanbuler Mitteilungen 16 (1966), 178-98, emphasizing that this obelisk paralleled a triumphal monument Constantius II had erected on the spina of the Circus Maximus when he visited Rome in 357 after his defeat of the usurper Magnentius.

Theodostus and His Women « 15

Aphrodisias in Caria, and from Pamphylian Side.3! During his absence in the West, Theodosius felt constrained to leave the great prefectures with men whose service and correct attitude toward the dynasty merited prolonged tenure of office and whose culture made them especially acceptable to their subordinates. When such constraints did not apply, however, Theodosius made it clear that other qualifications weighed more heavily. Maternus Cynegius, for instance, became comes sacrarum largitionum in 383, then guaestor briefly, and finally a powerful and sinister praetorian prefect of the East from 384 until his death in 388.32 The man was a Spaniard and apparently distant kin to the emperor. As John Matthews has demonstrated, Cynegius was only one of a tribe of relatives and familiar westerners whom Theodosius brought with him to the East and advanced to high office there.33 Tatianus succeeded

Cynegius, exceptionally, as praetorian prefect, and both he and his son retained their posts through the emperor’s absence. But when Theodosius returned from the West a dramatic sequel proved the rule. Flavius Rufinus from southern Aquitaine had emerged in 388 as magister officiorum.*4 In 392 he managed the disgrace of Tatianus, whom he succeeded as praetorian prefect, and a year later engineered the execution of Proculus before his father’s eyes. Despite the insinuations of detractors, the ambition of Rufinus and his violent character

counted no more in this affair than the emperor’s predisposition toward kinsmen and familiar westerners whose personal enthusiasms corresponded most closely to his own. Half a century later, the ecclesiastical historian Socrates identified the personal enthusiasm of Theodosius as Christian piety ‘‘inher, 31. L. Robert, Epigrammes du Bas-Empire, Hellenica vol. IV (Paris, 1948),

PP 2 PLRE, ] 235-36, ‘‘Maternus Cynegius 3’’; J.F. Matthews, ‘‘A Pious Supporter of Theodosius I,’’ /7A4S n.s. 18 (1967), 438-46. 33. Matthews, ‘‘Supporter’’; also his Western Anistocracies and the Imperial Court (Oxford, 1975), pp. 107-15. 34. PLRE, 1, 778, ‘‘Flavius Rufinus 18’’; E. Demougeot, De /’unité @ la

eatin de l'Empire romain 395-410 (Paris, 1951), pp. 119-26; infra, pp. 20, 52-53, 35. Eun. frg. 59 (FHG, IV, 40); Zos. 4. 52; Claud. In Ruf. 1. 246-49; Chron. pasch. a. 393 (p. 565 Bonn); E. Stein, Histoire du Bas-Empire, ed. J.R. Palanque, | (Paris-Bruges, 1959), p. 212; contrast Dagron, Natssance, pp. 256-57, 288-89, suggesting that the joint prefecture of Tatianus and Proculus endangered the emperor’s own authority, a hypothesis I find dubious when applied to this reign (cf., however, infra, p. 95).

16 + Theodosian Empresses

ited from his forefathers.’’3° His piety, Socrates asserted, was of the homoousian variety descended from the first ecumenical council of

Nicaea (325) and its teaching that Christ was ‘‘of the same substance’ as the Father. Though colored by retrospect, this judg-

ment was correct. In the autumn of 380, when Theodosius fell dangerously ill at Thessalonica and faced the private crisis of death, his refuge was the purifying Christian sacrament of baptism, and he insisted on receiving it from a homoousian bishop.37

But even before his baptism, the private piety of Theodosius had manifested itself in a characteristically dynastic form. As Theodosius labored with the Gothic problem, he encountered another challenge to his power that was hardly more tractable. If his own Nicene orthodoxy had triumphed in the West (including, significantly, southern Aquitaine and Spain), the opposite doctrine of Arianism had struck root in many eastern churches, with its insistence that Christ’s substance was ‘‘unlike’’ or, at most, ‘‘like’’ that of the Father. This was no metaphysical quibble. If it is true that when one asked in the alleyways and markets of Constantinople for the correct change, and they lecture you on the Begotten and the Unbegotten; or for the price of bread, and they respond that the Father is greater and the Son inferior; or if the bath is watm enough, and they define the Son for you as being from nothing ,38

then when the Roman popu/us gathered in the churches, thoroughfares, and hippodrome of the city, it would not respond as desired to the claims of a Nicene emperor. On February 28, 380, Theodosius directed the famous law or ‘‘constitution’’ cunctos populos from Thessalonica to the people of Constantinople. He declared his will that every Roman embrace the emperor’s own confession of faith: ‘‘the single godhead of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in equal majesty and the Holy Trinity.’’ Those who refused would be struck by divine vengeance and also by ‘‘our own punishment, which we will inflict according to the will of Heaven.’’39 36. Soc. 5. 6. 3; cf. in general W. Ensslin, Die Religionspolitik des Kaisers Theodosius des Grossen, Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Jahrgang 1953, Heft 2 (Munich, 1953);

N.Q. King, The Emperor Theodostus and the Establishment of Christianity (London, 1961).

37. Soc. 5. 6. 3-6, Soz. 7. 4. 3; cf. Ensslin, Re/igionspolitik, pp. 17-21, for the chronology. 38. Greg. Nyss. De deitate Filit et Spiritus Sancti, PG, XLVI, 557; cf. Dagron, Natssance, pp. 379, 448, on this ‘‘théologte de la rue.”’

39. CTA 16. 1. 2.

Theodosius and His Women + 17

With the hyperbole typical of imperial manifestos, those strong words concealed a more practical attitude. Cumctos populos did not specify a penalty. In general, Theodosius intended neither extermination of heretics nor forced conversions, but, as in his Gothic policy, reconciliation for the benefit of the dynasty.4° Bishops and priests were at the crux of the matter. Dissidents would lose their churches,

while those who replaced them, holy and eloquent men of the emperot’s persuasion, would begin to attract the usual fanatic loyalty of the faithful for their spiritual patrons.44 On November 26, 380, just two days after his advent in Constantinople, Theodosius drove out the Arian bishop Demophilus. The next day he arrayed a troop of

soldiers to keep in check mobs of Demophilus’ followers, as he introduced the homoousian Gregory Nazianzen as bishop into the Holy Apostles, the city’s principal church.4? This show of force both underscored the emperor’s seriousness in cunctos populos and involved him in paradox. As Wilhelm Ensslin

observed, cunctos populos amounted to ‘‘a legislative decision in matters of doctrine.’’43 Although the Nicene bishops, on whom the success of Theodosian orthodoxy depended, did, ‘like most contemporartes, recognize the divine character of the emperor’s authority ,*4 they limited it when doctrine was concerned to convoking councils of bishops, ensuring the freedom and order of their deliberations, and 40. Greg. Naz. De vita sua 1282-95 (ed. Jungck), Soc. 5. 20. 4-6, Soz. 7. 12. 12; cf. King, Establishment, p. 95: ‘‘his bark was far worse than his bite.’’ 41. Gregory of Nyssa makes the faithful of Antioch a bride, their bishop Meletius a bridegroom, and his mystical union with them one of ‘‘gladness and spiritual delights’’ brought tragically to an end when Meletius died in 381: ‘‘Rachel weeps not for her children but for her husband and will not be comforted,’’ Ora#o Junebris in Meletium, ed. Spira, pp. 448-50 (vol. IX Jaeger-Langerbeck). The people of Constantinople likewise refused comfort when their bishop John Chrysostom was sent into exile in 404: infra, pp. 74-77. 42. Greg. Naz. De vita sua 1325-95 (ed. Jungck), Soc. 5. 7. 4-11, Marcell. com. @. 380 (MGH: AA, XI, 61). 43. Religionspolitik, p. 24. A.-M. Ritter, Das Konztl von Konstantinopel und sein Symbol (Gottingen, 1965), pp. 28-31, 221-28, attempts com¢ra Ensslin to interpret cunctos populos as a ‘‘white paper’’ without the force of law (Grundsatzprogramm), a theory that hardly accords with the view of Theodosius himself on the validity of his constitutions: ‘‘perpensas serenitatis nostrae longa deliberatione constitutfones nec ignorare quemquam nec dissimulare permittimus’’; CTA 1. 1. 2 (391). For other objections to Ritter’s interpretation see, e.g., Lippold, RE, suppl.

XI (1973), 847, ‘“Theodosius I,’’ and most recently H. Anton, ‘‘Kaiserliches Selbstversténdnis in der Religionsgesetzgebung der Spatantike und papstliche Herrschaftsinterpretation 1m 5. Jahrhundert,’’ Z/Kg 88 (1977), 55 n. 73. 44. See esp. the /ogos prosphonetikos the assembled bishops addressed to Theodosius after the Council of Constantinople, 381: ‘‘We give thanks to God who

18 « Theodosian Empresses

enforcing their collective decisions.4° To escape the paradox and associate himself with the prestigious tradition of Constantine and

Nicaea, Theodosius gathered more than one hundred and fifty bishops from throughout the East in Constantinople in May of 381, for another imperial council.46 The emperor did not need to impose his will upon these bishops or interfere with their episcopal freedom,

because the majority of those whom he had invited were of the dynastic faith.47 Obediently, the council confirmed Gregory Nazianzen as bishop

of Constantinople, then, when Gregory resigned, accepted and enthroned another candidate of Theodosius, an elderly senator named Nectarius whose qualifications included popularity from lavish celebration of games for the people and lack of identification with any doctrinal position; hence the Arian followers of Demophilus would

be less inclined to reject his patronage and that of his sponsor Theodosius.48 Equally dynastic were the council’s confession and the canons it approved in its final session on July 9, 381. The confession corresponded in substance with cumctos populos and especially with

another Theodosius constitution, wu/us haereticts of January 10, 381.49 Canon 1 ‘‘anathematized’’ the same heresies that mu//us haereticis had ‘‘abolished’’ some months earlier, while Cahon 3 exalted

the city of Constantine and Theodosius, declaring that its bishop has proclaimed the emperorship of Your Piety,’ Mansi, III, 557, printed conveniently

in Ritter, Konzi/, p. 124 n. 2; in general, W. Ensslin, Gottkaiser und Katser von Gottes Gnaden, Sttzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Jahrgang 1943, Heft 6 (Munich, 1943), and J. Karayannopulos, ‘‘Der friihbyzantinische Kaiser,’’ BZ 49 (1956), 372-74. 45. The /ogos prosphonetikos of 381 explicitly recognizes the powers to convoke and confirm; cf. also infra, pp. 162-63, 198, 212-13, and in general A. Michel, Die Katsermacht in der Ostkirche (843-1204) (Darmstadt, 1959), pp. 56-78, and F. Dvornik, Early Christian and Byzantine Political Philosophy (Washington, D.C., 1966), Il, 635-42, 762-850. 46. Ritter, Konzi/, pp. 41-131, 230-37, a brilliant discussion but flawed by consistent underrating of the emperor’s influence. Ritter believes that tn fact as well as in theory Constantinople 381 was a ‘‘free council of bishops’’ (p. 235). 47. Ibid., pp. 38-40: preserved lists of participants include almost exclusively adherents of the neo-Nicene bishop Meletius of Antioch (supra, n. 41), who was present in Constantinople in early 381 when invitations were issued and presumably helped Theodosius put, together a pliant majority.

48. Soc. 5. 8. 12, Soz. 7. 8, Thdt. HE 5. 9. 15, Rufin. HE 12. 21, Marcell. com. @. 381. 1 (MGH: AA, XI, 61); cf. Ritter, Komwzi/, pp. 112-15, 234-35, again attempting to deny that the emperor’s influence was decisive. 49. CTA 16. 5. 6, in which Theodosius declares ‘‘haec profecto nobis magis probata, haec veneranda sunt’’; also Conciliorum oecumentcorum decreta, ed. J. Alberigo et al., 3rd ed. (Bologna, 1972), p. 24, for the text of the confession and Ritter, Konzi/, pp. 132-95, on its authenticity and genesis.

Theodosius and His Women «+ 19

ranked second only to the bishop of Rome, because Constantinople was ‘‘New Rome.’’*° Despite his piety, Theodosius aimed to encompass also the large portion of the eastern Populus romanus, especially of the aristocracy, that stood apart not only from the dynastic faith but from Christianity itself. Official propaganda addressed pagans in Constantinople when it made the emperor ‘‘second Helios,’’ but Theodosius cast his net more widely. In 382 he reversed an earlier constitution (an oraculum obreptivum, he declared, ‘‘obtained surreptitiously’’) and reopened a pop-

ular temple on the Euphrates frontier, so long as devotees did not actually sacrifice victims to its splendid cult images.*! As ‘‘living law’’ (zomos empsychos) the emperor possessed not only the exclusive right

to make new law but also the power to ignore his enactments, revise them, or apply them inconsistently to suit his dynastic advantage.>? A few years later (386/87), the praetorian prefect Maternus Cynegius, in apparent conflict with the emperor’s line, progressed through the eastern provinces supervising the attacks of monks upon pagan cult

centers—including, perhaps, the same popular temple on the Euphrates frontier. Buildings and images were smashed and temple properties broken up, to destroy their social and economic importance.>3 The celebrated sophist Libanius of Antioch reacted with a reasoned and eloquent address, Pro temp/is. Respectfully and with promises of obedience, he urged that such violence was illegal and ought not to go unpunished. The law did not forbid paganism as such,

he atgued, but only bloody sacrifice, while Theodosius had done much to encourage pagans, promoting them in his service, admitting

them to the familiarity of his table, and ‘‘even now joining with yourself [as ordinary consul, the greatest honor of all] a man [probably Eutroptus cos. 387] who in your very presence swears his oaths by the pagan gods.’’>4 Whether he read Pro templis or not, Theodosius did respond to such pleading. When Cynegius died in 388, traditionalists received Tatianus, a more compatible successor. 50. Conctlorum oecumenicorum decreta, pp. 31-32. 51. CTA 16. 10. 8. 52. A. Steinwenter, ‘‘NOMOZX EMWVYXOZX,”’ Anzeiger der Akademie der

Wissenschaften in Wien, Philosophisch-historische Klasse 83 (1946), 250-68; Dagron, ‘“‘Emptre,’’ pp. 127-34. 53. Liban. Or. 30. 8-23, 44-49 (III, 91-99, 111-15 Foerster); P. Petit, ‘‘Sur la date du «Pro Templis» de Libanius,’’ Byzantion 21 (1951), 298-304, for the campaign of Cynegius; J.H.W.G. Liebeschuetz, Antioch (Oxford, 1972), pp. 224-42, on the context of religious and social change. 54. Liban. Or. 30. 17-19, 50-53 (III, 96-97, 115-17 Foerster); Petit, ‘‘Sur la date,’’ p. 305 and passine.

20 + Theodostan Empresses

There was method in this imperial prevarication, because it trained both sides to place their confidence in Theodosius. But little of it survived the emperor’s residence in Italy during several periods between 388 and 391 (after the defeat of Maximus) and his encounter there with the most impressive of his contemporaries, Bishop Ambrose

of Milan. Tension between the emperor and this bishop reached a crisis in 390, when the people of Thessalonica assassinated one of the emperor’s trusted but unpopular German officers in a brawl. Turned

loose, by imperial command, in the hippodrome of the city, the soldiers inflicted punishment with their customary savagery, massa-

cring indiscriminately thousands of spectators. Ambrose properly blamed Theodosius and required penance. At the end of the year. after months of impasse and a reconciliation which the Aquitantan Rufinus seems to have mediated, the congregation of Milan witnessed the incredible contrition of an emperor who laid aside the imperial!

diadem and purple mantle to stand humiliated with them, awaiting the absolution of Ambrose and admission to the Nativity sacrifice.> It is hazardous to attempt to search the heart of an emperor, but the readiness of Theodosius to embrace public humiliation does indicate a very bad conscience, and suggests that both the bishop who eased his anxiety and the agent of reconciliation acquired a hold over him. This is a reasonable explanation for a new official line on the religious questions that helped fix ideological positions for confrontation on the Frigidus. On February 24 and June 16, 391, within a few months of the Christmas absolution, and on November 8, 392, when Theodosius had taken his court back to Constantinople, he legislated comprehensively against paganism, forbidding attendance in temples

and every form of cult from public sacrifice of victims to burning candles or incense for one’s household gods.** Significantly, the third constitution in the series was addressed to Rufinus, who some months

eatlier had engineered the fall of Tatianus and his son. Alienated now from the pagan aristocracy and ready to permit violence against its leaders, Theodosius was to depend more and more

upon powerful friends of another kind. In February, 392, he trans55. A remarkable confrontation often misunderstood; see J.-R. Palanque, Saint Ambroise et l’Empire romain (Paris, 1933), pp. 227-44, 536-39; F. Homes Dudden, The Life and Times of St. Ambrose (Oxford, 1935), II, 381-92; Ensslin, Religionspolitik, pp. 67-74; Matthews, Aristocractes, pp. 234-36. The main sources are Amb. Ep. 51 (PL, XVI, 1209-14), Rufin. HE 11. 18, Soz. 7. 25. 1-7, and Thdt. HE 5. 17-18. On chronological uncertainties cf. Lippold, RE, suppl. XIII, 888, ‘*Theodosius I."’

56. CTA 16. 10. 10-12

Theodosius and His Women «+ 21

lated the severed head of John the Baptist in a public procession and deposited it in a newly constructed chapel at the Hebdomon,?’ the army parade field seven milestones from Constantinople where emperors were proclaimed and where they addressed the troops before campaigns. The significant place or /ocus Theodosius selected demon-

strates that he considered this head to be an imperial and dynastic relic, a promise of victory. Two years later, as he broke camp from the

Hebdomon for the war against Arbogast and Eugenius, he entered the chapel to pray for an outcome favorable to himself, his troops, and the Roman Empire, and that the Baptist might come forth to fight at his side.*8 In the sixteen years since Adrianople, Theodosius had revitalized the eastern Roman monatchy beyond expectation, rebuilding its shat-

tered armies, advancing a new creed and a new ideological unity, promoting the metropolis of the East to rank with Rome as a fountain of imperial legitimacy and social prestige. In each case he had demonstrated the proclivities of a dynast, making his private religion the test of orthodoxy and his friends the instruments of social order—along

with his troops, of course, and the Roman people which acclaimed him in the hippodrome of his dynastic city. On the morning of September 6, 394, as Theodosius prepared to attack Eugenius, the future

of these accomplishments still hung in the balance. But in the anxious world of Late Antiquity, receptive as it was to the breaking in of transcendence, history could be made by meteorological chance, by an occurrence so mundane as the sudden blast of a hurricane.°9

The Domestic Side About 385 Constantinople had suffered an ‘‘earthquake,’’ as St. Gregory of Nyssa described it, but this time not one of the mundane 57. Soz. 7. 21; cf. Chron. pasch. a. 391 (p. 564 Bonn) for the date with the correction proposed by G. Rauschen, Jahrbicher der christlichen Kirche unter dem Katser Theodosius dem Grossen (Freiburg i. B., 1897), p. 356; on the Hebdomon and its monuments and ceremonial functions R. Demangel, Contribution a la topographie de l’Hebdomon, Recherches frangaises en Turquie, fasc. 3 (Paris, 1945); R. Janin, Constantinople byzantine, Archives de l|’Orient chrétien no. 4a, 2nd ed. (Paris, 1964), pp. 446-49. 58. Soz. 7. 24. 2. 59. A comment of Norman Baynes is worth recalling apropos of the Frigidus battle: ‘‘If your mind becomes queasy at the very idea of a miracle, the early Middle Age is not a proper field for your study: That synthesis of political and religious history which is essential for its understanding will remain for you an impossibility,’’ *‘Rome and the Early Middle Age,’’ History 14 (1930), 293.

22 « Theodostan Empresses

variety that struck the region periodically with inscrutable destructiveness, producing mass outpourings of anxiety and repentance.© This

‘eatthquake’’ was the death of Pulcheria, the emperor’s daughter. Although she was only a child of seven or eight, “‘a new-sprung blossom, with shining petals not yet lifted fully from the bud,’’ her passing afflicted the city’s inhabitants with a kind of setsmic hysteria: They filled the church and tts forecourt, the square beyond, the alleyways and tenements, the zesé and the cross-streets, the open spaces atop buildings—all one could see was a mass of humanity, as if the whole world had rushed to a single place in its grief. And there one could view that sacred blossom brought forth on a golden bier. How dejected were the faces of all who gazed upon her! How their eyes flowed with tears! They struck their

hands together, and their keening too made known the pain that filled their hearts.

Gregory drew the parallel in a stylishly baroque oratio consolatorta delivered on the day following the public funeral procession.© His vivid description demonstrates that a lively popular attachment existed even for the least of the emperor’s family, and that the dynastic edifice of Theodosius had an important domestic side. The girl’s mother, Aelia Flavia Flaccilla, was descended from Spanish aristocracy, as her women Aelia declared.’ Passed from Flaccilla to other imperial women of the family’s eastern branch, this

nc ten was to become in effect a title of female distinction and dy 1astic exclusiveness.6? Theodosius must have married the woman

at the latest during his temporaty retirement, 376-78, for when she

atrived with him in the East she had already given birth to two children, Pulcheria and her first son Arcadius.® In the following years Flaccilla’s relatives emerged together with those of Theodosius among 60. Cf., e.g., Philostorg. 12. 9-10 and Nest. Herac/., trans. Nau, pp. 317-18, for contemporary reaction to earthquakes, and Cosmas Indicopleustes Topographia

christiana 1. 21-22 (ed. Wolska-Conus) for a pious monk’s rejection of current ‘scientific’’ explanations. 61. Oratio consolatoria in Pulcheriam, ed. Spira, pp. 461-63 (vol. IX JaegerLangerbeck).

62. Claud. Ser. 50-51, 56: ‘‘Quid dignum memorare tuis, Hispania, terris / vox humana valet? . . . series his fontibus Aelia fluxit.’’ In the coinage, obverse legends employ this zoen for all eastern empresses from Flaccilla through the fifth century, even after the extinction of the Theodosian dynasty in 453, and for the western empresses Galla Placidia and Licinia Eudoxia on coins struck for them in the East; see, e.g., L. Laffranchi, ‘‘Nuovo aureo di Licinia Eudossia e il corpus numismatico di questa Augusta,’’ Rassegna numismatica 28 (1931), 255-56.

63. O. Seeck, RE, VI (1909), 2431-33, ‘‘Aelia Flaccilla Augusta 3,’’ and PERE, 1, 341-42, ‘‘Aelia Flavia Flaccilla,’’ on Flaccilla and her children.

Theodosius and His Women «+ 23

the social and political elite of Constantinople, although only Nebridius, in his first marriage the husband of her sister; is attested in high office, as comes sacrarum largitionum (383-84) and as city prefect (386). At one point Flaccilla dissuaded Theodosius from a colloquy with the impressive Arian bishop Eunomius of Cyzicus, so fearful was

she that in his efforts toward reconciliation her husband might be induced to betray the Nicene faith she too had carried with her from the West.® She bore a second male child, Honorius, on September 9, 384, in the imperial palace of Constantinople. About three years later she died at a place called Skotoume in Thrace, where healing springs had failed to relieve her illness.®

This record would hardly make Flaccilla a figure of unusual importance, were it not that among her contemporaries a process of enhancement set in. Called forward to deliver another oratio consolatoria on the occasion of her death, Gregory of Nyssa again drew the

analogy with earthquakes, but added wars, floods, and the appearance of fissures in the earth’s crust, declaring that the loss of Flaccilla surpassed all of these because it struck the whole inhabited world simultaneously. ‘‘As his partner in the Jasileia {imperial dominion],’’ ‘‘functioning with him in the same arché [office],’’ she supported her husband’s best qualities and also exhibited virtues of her own: This ornament of the Empire has gone from us, this rudder of justice, the image of philanthropy or, rather, its archetype. This model of wifely love has been taken away, this undefiled monument of chastity, dignified but approachable, clement but not to be despised, Humble but exalted, modest but ready to speak boldiy—a harmonious mixture of all the virtues. This zeal for the faith has departed from us, this pillar of the church, decoration of altars, wealth of the needy, the right hand which satisfied many, the common haven of those who are heavy laden. Let virgins mourn, widows grieve, and orphans lament: let them know what they had now that they have her no more!®7

64. PLRE, 1, 620, ‘‘Nebridius 2’’; Matthews, Arzstocracies, pp. 109-10. Wrede, ‘‘Errichtung,’’ p. 194, identifies the two ‘‘princes’’ who flank Arcadius in

the kathisma on the NE and SE reliefs of the Theodosius obelisk base (Bruns, Obelisk, figs. 45, 78) as two ‘‘nephews’’ of Flaccilla, one of them presumably ‘“Nebridius 3,’’ PLRE, I, 620. If this identification is correct, it provides striking

visual evidence for the ceremonial exaltation of Flaccilla’s relatives.

65. Soz. 7. 6. 3. 66. Greg. Nyss. Oratio funebris in Flacillam Imperatricem, ed. Spira, p. 481

(vol. TX Jaeger-Langerbeck). 67. Ibid., pp. 478, 480, 488.

24 » Theodosian Empresses

Conventional and hackneyed though it may appear,® this catalogue includes four virtues to which Gregory attached special significance; he returned to emphasize them at the conclusion of his sermon.® The same virtues manifested themselves publicly in Flaccilla’s career

and received enough approval among contemporaries to suggest deliberate creation of an imperial image for women, an image that Flaccilla would pass, like her zomemn Aelia, to other empresses of the Theodosian house.

In Gregory’s interpretation, ‘‘zeal for the faith’’ or ‘‘piety”’ (eusebeia) was Flaccilla’s chief virtue and, more than the rest, would assure his congregation that she had exchanged her earthly Jasileia

for a heavenly one. It connoted ‘‘hatred’’ of pagan idolatry, of coutse, but espectally ‘‘disgust’’ for Arianism, which, by denying the

homoousian divinity of Christ, likewise implicated its followers in idolatrous worship of a created being.7° Christian eusebeta had chatacterized a number of Flaccilla’s predecessors, especially Constantine’s

mother, Helena. The arduous pilgrimage to the holy places of Jerusalem she had undertaken in 326 had moved Eusebius of Caesarea to include a brief exzcomium of her piety in his work De vita Constantint. By the end of the century legend had added to this achievement her discovery of the True Cross.71 When doctrine was the issue, however, imperial women since Helena had promoted Arianism, using their influence to exile Nicene bishops and restore Arians to their sees, and to provide the latter with a favorable hearing at court.72 As late as 385-86, Justina, mother of the young western emperor Valentinian 68. To judge from Jul. Or. 3. 104b and Claud. In coms. Olybr. et Prob. 191-205, litterateurs had a stock of /azzdes for women that paralleled those for men.

Traditional /audes for imperial women may be found in Julian's panegyric on Eusebia, the wife of Constantius II (Or. 3), and in Claudian’s verse panegyric Laws Serenae. Gregory’s laudes Flaccillae have little in common with either but much to do with a passage tn Eusebius’ Vita Comstantini (infra). 69. Pp. 487-90. Unless otherwise specified, further references to Gregory will

indicate this passage. ,

70. Cf. Amb. De 04. Theod. 40 (CSEL, LXXIH, 392): ‘‘Flaccilla . . . fidelis anima Deo.’’ 71. Euseb. VC 3. 41. 2-47. 4, Amb. De ob. Theod. 40-48 (CSEL, LXXIII, 392-97); cf. J. Straubinger, Die Kreuzauffindungslegende, Forschungen zur christlichen Literatur- und Dogmengeschichte vol. XI, no. 3 (Paderborn, 1912). On the chronology of Helena’s pilgrimage I follow H. Chadwick, ‘“The Fall of Eustathios of Antioch,”’ Journal of Theological Studies 49 (1948), 32-35 (with thanks to Hal Drake for referring me to this article).

72. Helena herself: Athan. Hist. Ar. 4. 1-2 (ed. Opitz, pp. 184-85). Constantia, sister of Constantine: Philostorg. 1. 9, Soz. 3. 19. 3. Eusebia, wife of Constantius Il: Soc. 2. 2. 4, 6. Domnica, wife of Valens: Thdt. HE 4. 12. 3-4.

Theodosius and His Women « 25

II, engaged in a notable struggle with St. Ambrose to secure tolera-

tion and use of one of Milan’s churches: for the embattled Arian faithful.73 If knowledge of this conflict had penetrated to Constantinople by the time of Flaccilla’s death, it must have given spectal point to Gregory’s praise of her exsebeza, because now a woman of her prestige had intervened for the new dynastic orthodoxy. The Gospel admonition to ‘‘humble oneself as this little child” (Matthew 18:4) imposed special burdens on a woman in Flaccilla’s position. Married to an emperor (Jast/eus), she entered the imperial palace (SasH/eza) and became, in common parlance, Jasilis ot bastlissa (Latin regena). Without a legal or constitutional significance, this title derived entirely from a woman’s consanguinity or marital association

with a Jastleus.74 But it did bring with it the sacred, numinous quality that distinguished the emperor from his subjects, making his

imperial apartments, for example, the sacrum cubiculum and his countenance the sacer vultus. As Gregory observed, Flaccilla occupied

the same ‘'‘secret places of the emperor,’’ and normally her countenance remained hidden from all but a few, in curtained chambers patrolled by the palace guard (scho/ares).7> When she did travel abroad, concealed in an imperial wagon decorated with gold and purple, the same guard accompanied her, and on her return to Constantinople residents of all ages and ‘classes came forth from the city gates to hail her adventus, while men of the highest rank formed an escort to lead her through the city amid chants of praise from the

people.76

Despite this exaltation, Gregory insisted, Flaccilla remembered her human limitations and preserved her ‘‘humility’’ (¢¢peznophrosyné). Gregory provided no details, but another author described the type of conduct he had in mind. When Flaccilla visited the sick and

73. Sources in PLRE, I, 488-89, ‘‘lustina’’; for chronology Palanque, Azzbroise, pp. 511-14. 74. Julian expresses this neatly in his panegyric on Eusebia (Or. 3. 112b): éneidh tOv Pacwrstov elow naphAve Kal tijcg éExwvoplacs tadtySs FEIMOVH. ... Although employed commonly for emperors, the title Sast/eus did not enter the official titulature until the early seventh century: L. Brehier, ‘‘L’origine des tittes impériaux 4 Byzance,’’ BZ 15 (1906), 165-73. 75. Pp. 483-84; cf. A. Alféldi, ‘‘Die Ausgestaltung des monarchischen Zetemoniells am rémischen Kaiserhofe,’’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archéologischen Instituts, Rémische Abtetlung 49 (1934) = Die monarchische Repriésentation wun romischen Katserretche (Darmstadt, 1970), pp. 29-38. 76. Gregoty Oratio, pp. 481-82, contrasting the sad spectacle of Flaccilla’s cortege and arrival with the joy of a normal adventus kath tov BaclAEiov Kdopov. Jul. Or. 3. 129b-c mentions Eusebia’s adventus in Rome (354?), when the senate

26 « Theodostan Empresses

maimed in the hospitals of Constantinople, she ‘‘brought the pot, fed them soup, gave them their medicine, broke their bread, served them morsels, and washed the bowl, performing with her own hands all the tasks normally given to servants and handmaids.’’?7 In a handmaid such conduct would have attracted no attention. In Flaccilla, a figure invested with brilliance and mystery, it became exalted sapeznophrosyné, a highly effective virtue which must have humanized the monarchy and brought the dynasty closer to the everyday anxieties of the people. How might one believe, Gregory inquired, that she had entered the heavenly 4ast#/eia with those on the Lord’s right hand? Again a Gospel text set a standard for imperial conduct as it offered consolation for the bereaved: ‘‘Inasmuch as you have done it unto one of the least of these, you have done it unto me’’ (Matthew 25:40). Once an attribute of benevolent deities, pAi/anthropia, ‘‘love of mankind,”’ had long since counted among the chief imperial virtues.7® In the fourth century, as the impact of Christian ag@pé and charitable institutions manifested itself, the emperors and their ideologues applied

it more insistently to ‘‘the least of these,’’ an effort to tap a rich source of popularity in which imperial women assumed a prominent role. Thus Eusebius praised Helena for benefiting the entire East ona

scale made possible only by imperial resources. Constantine supand people received her Onavt@vtec Kai SeErobpevor KaddnEep vopos PaciAtda. On adventus in general see now S. MacCormack, Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity (Berkeley-Los Angeles-London, 1981), pp. 17-89. For the wagon and retinue of a basitis £. Jul. Ep. ad Ath. 285b, Amm. 29. 6. 7, Soc. 5. 11. 6-9, Thdt. HE 5. 19. 2, and R.I. Frank, Scholae Palatinae, Papers and Monographs of the American Academy in Rome vol. XXIII (Rome, 1969), p. 100. 77. Thdt. HE 5. 18. 2-3. Cf. the contemporaty image of Helena—Amb. De

ob. Theod. 41 (CSEL, LXXII, 393): ‘‘bona stabularia, quae maluit aestimart stercora, ut Christum lucrifaceret’’; esp. Rufin. HE 10. 8: ‘‘virgines, quas ibi [Jerusalem] repperit deo sacratas, invitasse ad prandium et tanta eas devotione curasse dicitur, ut indignum crederet, si famulorum uterentur officiis, sed ipsa manibus suts famulae habitu succincta cibum adponeret, poculum porrigeret, aquam manibus

infunderet et regina orbis ac mater imperii famularum ‘Christi se famulam deputaret'’; also the Greek ecclesiastical histories dependent on Rufinus—Soc. 1. 17. 12: dv éavtiis Aettovpyoboa; Soz. 2. 2. 2: Aéyetar... OmNnpétiv yevéovat; Thdt.

1. 18. 8: adth Vepanatvtdoc Epyov éxArpov. 78. G. Downey, ‘'Philanthropia in Religion and Statecraft in the Fourth Century after Christ,’’ Historia 4 (1955), 199-208; J. Kabtersch, Untersuchungen zum Begriff der Philanthropia bei dem Kaiser Julian, Kiassisch-philologische Studien no. 21 (Wiesbaden, 1960); H. Hunger, ‘‘PIAANOPOTIIA,”’ Axzeiger der Osterretchischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Jahr-

gang 1963, pp. 1-20; L.J. Daly, ‘‘Themistius’ Concept of PAtlanthropia,’’ Byzantion 45 (1975), 22-40.

Theodosius and His Women + 27

ported her generosity, he claimed, by granting her the authority to draw as she saw fit on the imperial treasuries. Among the recipients of

her largesse Eusebius listed the populations of various cities she visited during her pilgrimage, the soldiers, the churches ‘‘even in the

smallest cities,’ the ‘‘naked and helpless poor,’’ and the most wretched criminals, condemned to chains and servitude in the mines, whom she called back from exile and set free.79 Flaccilla undertook no pilgrimage, so far as is known, but if she

concentrated her efforts on the dynastic city and its environs their results must have been no less impressive. The sick and maimed received her attention, as did virgins, widows, and orphans, the naked

and the hungry. Like Eusebius, however, Gregory stressed philanthropy toward those beyond the resources of ordinary human sympathy. ‘The proof is before your eyes,’’ he said, ‘‘for you saw a wretch at the altar despairing of his salvation. You saw a contemptible woman grieving at her brother’s condemnation. You heard the good news announced to the congregation, that in memory of the empress the baneful sentence of death has been commuted and he will live.’’ An act of imperial clemency made public at her funeral®° revitalized for Gregory’s listeners the philanthropy Flaccilla had practiced during her life. ‘‘Through her how many have discovered the grace of the resurrection for themselves, who, having died in the laws and received the sentence of death, in her have been recalled to life?’’

The image was remarkable indeed. Gregory’s language evoked the agapé which through Christ’s death likewise ‘‘recalled to life’’ those who had ‘‘died in the laws.’’8! Again, only imperial resources permitted philanthropy on this scale, because such philanthropy required inconsistent application of the laws. Finally, Gregory emphasized Flaccilla’s ‘‘wifely love’’ (pAilan-

dria). The dead woman had made a loving division of her wealth, choosing Pulcheria for herself, ‘‘since offspring are the chief of blessings,’’ but assigning her male children to their father ‘‘to serve as bulwarks of the dasileiz.’’ This definition of philandria appeats contrived and the praise gratuitous.®? Flaccilla deserved no credit for

the simple accident that her daughter preceded her in death. But 79. Euseb. VC 3. 44-45. 80. Cf. p. 479. Them. Or. 18. 225b, 19. 231a emphasizes Flaccilla’s sustice, but for Gregory of Nyssa her pAi/anthropy went beyond justice. 81. Rom. 7:4, Gal. 2:19, Col. 2:13. 82. Traditionally this virtue consisted of devotion to one’s husband and his interests, as with Penelope: Jul. Or. 3. 106a, 113c-114a, 127c, Claud. Ser. 212-36.

28 + Theodostan Empresses

Gregory’s words nonetheless had a force which may be appreciated at once from the melancholy example of a woman who was less fortu-

nate. Constantius II (d. 361) married his second wife Eusebia ‘‘to procreate children who would inherit his rank and power,’’ but she could not conceive. Eusebia embraced Arianism, it was said, when the intercessions of orthodox priests failed to cure her. Contempo-

raties also blamed her for the childlessness of Helena, sister of Constantius and wife of his cousin and rival Julian the Apostate. Helena’s first child died at birth, but her fertility frightened Eusebia so much that according to rumor she tricked her sister-in-law into accepting a drug that caused her to abort subsequent pregnancies. A few years later Eusebia perished under the ministrations of a female practitioner who claimed the ability to restore her uterus.®3 Childbearing was crucial to the success of these women, and failure to produce might drive one to extremes. Thus Gregory’s interpretation received its force from Flaccilla’s success in childbearing. The scale of her success became apparent on January 19, 383. On that day, the fourth anniversary of his own des imperit, Theodosius elevated Flaccilla’s elder son Arcadtus to the rank of Augustus, the imperial distinction held at the time by Theodosius himself and by his western colleagues Gratian and Valentinian II. To

emphasize the theoretical origin of the imperial power in the will of the troops, the court chose to conduct the elevation ceremony at the Hebdomon. Presumably Theodosius himself presented the insignia, draping Arcadius with the imperial pa/udamentum (Gteek chlamys),

a military cloak of purple fastened on the right shoulder with a jeweled imperial frhu/a, and binding on his head the diadem of an emperor. (These insignia can be readily examined on contemporary coins, fig. 5, and on the Missorium of Theodosius, fig. 8, an object created in 388.) Presumably also, an assembly of troops responded with acclamations signifying approval of the new monarch and willingness to obey his orders.84 With the imperial distinction, Arcadius 83. Jul. Or. 3. 109b, Ep. ad Ath, 2712, Philostorg. 4. 7, Amm. 16. 10. 18-19,

Joh. Chrys. In Ep. ad Philipp. 5 (PG, LXII, 295); cf. O. Seeck, RE, VI (1909), 1365-66, ‘‘Eusebia 1."’ 84. Chron. pasch. a. 385 (pp. 562-63 Bonn), Marcell. com. 2. 383. 2 (MGH: AA, XI, 61), Cons. Const. a. 383. 1 (MGH: AA, IX, 244), Soc. 5. 10. 25; cf. Rauschen, Jahrbiicher, p. 146, for the date. H.-G. Beck, Senat und Volk von Konstantinopel,

Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophischhistorische Klasse, Jahrgang 1966, Heft 6 (Munich, 1966), pp. 4-10, correctly stresses the military origins of the Sast/ez in this period. For the contemporary ceremonial of

Theodosius and His Women + 29

received the supreme magisterial powers of legislation, jurisdiction, and military command. Obviously, these powers meant little vested

in a child under the thumb of his father, but even so they made Arcadius a ‘‘bulwark of the Jasi/eig,’’ as Gregory insisted, for the elevation of Arcadius implied the survival of the dynasty into the next

generation and secured the futures of ambitious men who attached themselves to it. At the same time or shortly thereafter,8> the child’s mother

received the rank Augusta, the imperial distinction held by the Augusti. Gregory must have had this rank in mind when he said that Flaccilla shared dastleia and arché with her husband. His words seem precise enough but require qualification, because the author did not mean that with her new rank Flaccilla acquired the magisterial powets

of an Augustus. The Romans had never admitted women to the magistracies or to the senate, and when on rare occasions they entetimperial elevations see in general MacCormack, Art and Ceremony, pp. 161-266; and esp. Claud. De IV coms. Hon. 170-211 on the elevation of Honorius, January 10,

393, with W. Ensslin, ‘‘Zur Torqueskrénung und Schilderhebung bei der Katserwahl,’’ K/io 35 (1942), 297 and passim, and A. Christophilopoulou, E&/ogé, anagoreusis kat stepsis tou Byzantinou autokratoros, Pragmateiai tés Akadémias Athénon,

vol. XXII, no. 2 (Athens, 1956), p. 10; also V. Tiftixoglu, ‘‘Die Helenianai nebst einigen anderen Besitzungen im Vorfeld des friithen Konstantinopel,’’ Studien zar Friithgeschichte Konstantinopels, ed. H.-G. Beck, Miscellanea byzantina monacensia vol. XIV (Munich, 1973), pp. 79-83, associating the protocol contained in Const.

Porph. De cer. 1. 91 (I, 412-17 Bonn) with the elevation of Honorius. Averil Cameron in Flavius Cresconius Corippus, In daudem lustini Augusti minoris, ed. and trans. with commentary by Averil Cameton (London, 1976), p. 176, states that ‘‘it is not until the 6th [century] that the crowning with the diadem comes to assume the

major importance in inaugurations,’’ but ste//ati . . . crines in Claud. /oc. cit. line 209 must mean the diadem, while Philostorg. 11. 2 reports that Theodosius ‘Ovapio

tov BaoiAstov napatidnot otégavov (cf. infra, n. 90); similarly, the use of d&vadetv in the general sense, ‘‘to create an emperor,’’ implies that the constitutive act was a ‘‘binding up”’ (i.e., with the diadem), e.g., Them. Orv. 14. 182d: BaotAca Baoilebs &vadei Kal odK EAaTtTObTAL S160UG.

85. No literary source mentions the coronation of Flaccilla, but numismatic evidence proves that it occurred before eastern mints ceased issuing coins for Gratian, after his assassination on August 25, 383. Mint-marks show that at least Heraclea,

Constantinople, Nicomedia, and Antioch struck Aes II (large bronze) pieces of Flaccilla (obverse legend AEL FLAC—CILLA AVG, imfra, p. 32) concurrently with the Aes II GLORIA RO—MANORVM coins of Gratian: RIC, IX, 195.13/194.11, 226.55/225.52, 257.28/256.25, 284.43/283.40. The same Flaccilla Aes II pieces also parallel the first Arcadius Aes IIT GLORIA RO—MANORVYVM coins with the divine

hand crowning the emperor on the obverse: RIC, IX, 195.12, 226.53, 257.26, 283-84.41; cf. infra, p. 66. Thus the elevation of Arcadius provides a serminus a quo for Flaccilla’s coronation, as J.W.E. Pearce assumed: RIC, IX, 194, 222, 256, 282.

30 « Theodostan Empresses

tained the possibility, the notion struck them as illegal and positively revolting.®6 Gregory himself adduced only ceremonial exaltation of Flaccilla and laudable wifely admonitions that encouraged Theodosius to exercise his powers virtuously.87 It was influence, not power, that permitted her to demonstrate imperial philanthropia.

The circumstances of Flaccilla’s coronation suggest that the distinction Augusta had a more specific meaning. Like Arcadius, Flaccilla presumably received it from Theodosius himself. Since she would not be giving orders, Theodosius probably conferred it not at the Hebdomon but in a coutt setting, perhaps in the confines of the imperial palace of Constantinople.8* Most important, chronological proximity to the elevation of Arcadius indicates that Theodosius made Flaccilla an Augusta to draw attention to her childbearing, the implications of which became abundantly clear in the figure of her son. For

Theodosius and his friends, the great men of the comztatus who 86. Some notable examples: Tac. Aww. 13. 5 reports that in A.D. 54 Agrippina approached the suggestus tmperii to preside with Nero over the senate, but “though the rest were numb with fear’? Seneca warned Nero and intercepted his mother to prevent ‘‘disgrace’’—‘‘ita specie pietatis obviam itum dedecori.’’ According to the SHA Elag. 4. 1—2, the emperor’s mother, Soaemias, was the only woman who ever entered the senate chamber, sat on the consuls’ bench, and participated in the proceedings—'‘solusque omnium imperatorum fuit, sub quo mulier quasi clarissima loco viti senatum ingressa est.'’ CTA 6. 4. 17 (370) required heiresses to assume senatorial and praetorian financial obligations incurred by their fathers, ‘‘although it appears to be unlawful and disgraceful for women to advance to the Senatorial garb

and insignia’ (trans. Pharr). Claud. Iw Eutrop. 1. 319-21 declares that Janus forbids a eunuch to enter the fasti, that it would be less ‘‘disgusting’’ if a woman held the consulship illegally—‘‘sumeret inlicitos etenim si femina fasces, / esset tutpe minus. . . .’’ Such passages make it impossible to accept without qualification the view of St. Maslev (following Mommsen) that ‘‘in der rémischen Zeit gab es keine Rechtshindernisse, welche den Frauen den Weg zum Prinzipat versperrt hatten,’ “Die staatsrechtliche Stellung der byzantinischen Kaiserrinnen,’’ Byzantinoslavica 27 (1966), 308. See also R. MacMullen, ‘‘Women in Public in the Roman Empire,’ Historia 29 (1980), 207-18, and zxfra, pp. 97, 213. 87. Contemporary panegyric did not hesitate to praise such interventions: Jul. Or. 3. 114a-115a, stressing that Eusebia did not ‘‘constrain’’ Constantius; also Claud. Ser. 134-39, for Theodostus unburdening himself to Serena. 88. Constantine conferred the distinction on Helena (Euseb. VC 3. 47. 2) and supposedly on his daughter Constantina (fra, n. 90), while in 421 Galla Placidia received it from Honorius and Constantius III: tod te idiov &deA gob Kai tod idiov

dvépog xElpotovnodvtmv—Olymp. frg. 34 (FHG, IV, 65). The language employed for elevations is conventional (e.g., dvayopevecVa, yeipotoveiv, énaipeiv) and permits no conclusions as to the nature of the ceremonial; cf. Ensslin, ‘“Torqueskrénung,”’ p. 295, and W. Sickel, ‘‘Das byzantinische Krénungsrecht bis zum 10. Jahrhundert,’’ BZ 7 (1898), 520-21, esp. 544 n. 68 on the /oci of later Augusta coronations.

Theodostus and His Women + 31

depended upon continuation of the dynasty, the woman’s function paralleled in importance the magisterial function of her consort and might be thought to merit the same distinction. An Augusta was not an unprecedented phenomenon. The first emperor Augustus had invented the rank for his wife, Livia, and his successors had employed it often for mothers, wives, and sisters.®? Constantine the Great had conferred it in 324 on his mother, Helena, and on his wife, Fausta, in a flourish of dynastic confidence that accompanied the promotion of his son Constantius II to the rank

Caesar.9° With Constantine’s death in 337 the practice fell into abeyance. His sons remained without heirs, as did their cousin Julian, and consequently had no occasion to emulate him. But this was not

the case with Valentinian I (d. 375), founder of the next dynasty. Valentinian I elevated neither his first wife, Marina, nor his second, Justina, although each produced a son (Gratian and Valentinian II) who was made Augustus in the lifetime of his mother. Flaccilla’s new rank must have impressed contemporaties as a dramatic innovation and as reversion to prestigious Constantinian practice. Despite the youth of her son, Flaccilla, like Helena, was celebrated ‘‘for her pious deeds and for the towering and wonderful plant that sprang from her.’’92 89. K. Neumann, RE, II (1896), 2371-72, ‘‘Augustus,’’ and for analysis esp. E. Kornemann, Doppelprinzipat und Reichsteilung im Imperium Romanum (Leipzig and Berlin, 1930), pp. 35-40, 51, 67-68, 71-72, 92-95. 90. Again the only evidence is numismatic: P. Bruun, RIC, FX, 45, 53. The famous Ep. Eusebii ad Constantiam Augustam, Mansi, XIII, 313, has been taken as evidence that Constantine also conferred the rank on his sister Constantia (e.g., O. Seeck, RE, IV [1901], 958, ‘‘Constantia 13°’), but see now C. Murray, ‘‘Art and the Early Church,’’ JTAS n.s. 28 (1977), 326-36, casting grave doubts on the document's authenticity. Similarly, Philostorg. 3. 22 (¢f. 28) reports that Constantine had made his daughter Constantia (Constantina) an Augusta—dtadjpati te abdthv étawviocev kat Abyodotav én@vopacev—and that she thus had the power to appoint Vetranio Caesar in 350 to resist the usurper Magnentius. The episode is revealing (cf. infra, n. 102), but if Constantine had elevated his daughter (or his sister, for that matter) one would expect to find coins confirming the rank Augusta. More likely, the rank of Constantina was a convenient fiction that lent weight to the temporary promotion of Vetranio (cf. Stein, Histoire, 1, 319, for the context). 91. Joh. Mal. 13 (Bonn, p. 341) makes Marina an Augusta, and Jord. Rom. 314 (MGH: AA, V: 1, 40) gives the same rank to Domnica, the wife of Valens. Both authors wrote, however, in the sixth century, when this distinction had become normal for imperial consorts. Again, neither empress appears in the coinage. The Jordanes passage depends on Soc. 5. 1. 3, where Domnica is styled simply } tod

Bactkéas yovi.

92. Euseb. VC 3. 47. 1.

32 » Theodosian Empresses

Even more impressive was the appearance of Flaccilla in the coinage, a ubiquitous and at least in some cases an effective medium of imperial propaganda. From her elevation in 383 until her death in 387, Constantinople and other eastern mints struck coins with her

image in gold, silver, and bronze. Figure 6 presents a beautiful specimen, a solidus minted at Constantinople (mint-mark CONOB) and preserved in the collection of the Staatliche Museen, Berlin. The concise idiom of numismatists permits a neutral description: Obverse. AEL(IA) FLAC—CILLA AVG(VSTA) Bust right, mantled, with necklace and elaborate headdress. Reverse. SALVS REI—PVBLICAE Victory enthroned right, writing chi-rho on shield resting on small column. CONOB in the exergue.

The reverse will not bear much interpretation. The designer employed the commonplace legend SALVS REI—PVBLICAE (‘‘well-being of

the state’’) with the throned goddess Victory from contemporary VOTA issues of the Augusti, replacing the VOTA numbers of the latter with the chi-rho to create a distinct but trivial reverse type fot an empress.? —

The obverse is a different matter entirely. The legend specifies Flaccilla’s zomen, Aelia, and her rank, Augusta. The mantle is clearly a paludamentum of the imperial type, and the f4w/¢ securing tt on Flaccilla’s right shoulder has the same triple pendants or chains that characterize the emperors’ /zhu/ge on the coins and the Missorium of Theodosius. The style of Flaccilla’s headdress, as she wore it when she

appeared before the court or people on ceremonial occasions, can readily be imagined. Those who constructed it began with the socalled Scheztelzopf-Frisur, familiar also from the coins of Helena and

other portraits of empresses of the period (cf. figs. 3, 11). They divided the hair at the crown of the head and formed it into plaits or braids, which they then brought forward over the crown to the forehead. Strands of pearls were laid in sharp vertical waves along the 93. C.H.V. Sutherland, ‘‘The Intelligibility of Roman Imperial Coin Types,’’ JRS 49 (1959), 46-55, responding to A.H.M. Jones, ‘‘Numismatics and History,’’ Essays in Roman Coinage Presented to Harold Mattingly, ed. R.A.G. Carson and C.H.V. Sutherland (Oxford, 1956), pp. 13-33. For a case in point from the early fifth century cf. izfra, pp. 109-10. 94, RIC, IX, 305 (Index I), ‘‘Flaccilla, Aelia.’’ 95. Ibid., pp. 316 (Index IV), ‘‘VICTORY,"’ 320-21 (Index V), ‘““SALVS REIPVBLICAE.”’ A secondary Flaccilla reverse is equally distinct but trivial: ““SALVS REI—PVBLICAE Empress standing facing, head right, with arms crossed on breast,”’ thid., p. 313 (Index IV), ‘“‘EMPRESS.’’

Theodosius and His Women « 33

temples, and pearl-headed pins were inserted to enrich the hairdo beneath the braids.9® Before completing their work, the stylists bound

an imperial diadem around Flaccilla’s head, a band of cloth or other pliable material decorated, in this case, with precious stones in rosette settings. The Berlin solidus also shows clearly the forehead jewel which characterized the diadem and the lively ties or ribbons that secured it at the back, visible here as they emerge from the plaits of Flaccilla’s hair.97

Although the images of Augustae had appeared in the coinage ever since the Julio-Claudian period,%* the women’s headgear was most often the stephané of a goddess, not the laurel crown or other insignia of the Augusti, from whom the females were systematically distinguished.99 Constantine’s mints observed the rule in coins struck for Helena and Fausta as Augustae from the time of their coronation in 324. Reverses of Fausta explicitly associate her rank with child-

bearing, embodied in her sons Constantius II and Constans, the ‘‘hope of the state’’ (fig. 4): SPEISREIP—VBLICAE Empress standing left, draped and veiled, holding two infants and leaning on column.

On the obverses Fausta usually appears bareheaded, while the decotrated headband of Helena’s coin portraits lacks the forehead jewel and

especially the ties or ribbons, and therefore cannot represent the diadem, which Constantine first introduced for his Vicennalia celebration in 325 (figs. 2, 5).!°° Nor does Helena’s mantle include any 96. K. Wessel, ‘‘Rémische Frauenfrisuren von der severischen bis zur konstantinischen Zeit,’’ Archdologischer Anzeiger (1946-47), 66-70 (with useful drawings); R. Delbrueck, Spatantike Katserportraits von Konstantinus Magnus bis zum Ende des Westreichs (Berlin and Leipzig, 1933), pp. 51-52, 66. As Delbrueck points out (p. 35), the ‘*Staatsfrisuren’’ formed ‘‘einen Teil des saékularen Ornats,’’ an observation true, naturally, of female as well as of male hairstyles. Cf. Amm. 22. 4. 9-10 for Julian’s reaction when a lavishly paid and richly adorned imperial sonsor appeared to trim his hair. 97. Delbrueck, Kaiserportréts, pp. 58-66, for diadem typology; M.R. Alféldi, Die constantinische Goldprigung (Mainz, 1963), pp. 139-41, on the significance of the forehead jewel. 98. U. Kahrstedt, ‘‘Frauen auf antiken Miinzen,’’ K/o 10 (1910), 291-99, 304-10.

99. A. Alféldi, “‘Insignien,’’ pp. 123-24 (= Reprasentation, pp. 241-42); also p. 21 (= p. 139), referring to the ‘‘Géttinkranze’’ of empresses as ‘*Versuche, den Augustae eine, der der Augusti entsprechende, rangbezeichnende Kranztracht zu erfinden.’’ 100. M.R. Alféldi, Goldprigung, p. 93, for introduction of the diadem; cf., however, Bruun, RIC, EX, 44, 53, 465, 476. 56. 489, 514. 131, dating the earliest

34 + Theodostan Empresses

distinctive feature that might have permitted those who handled her coins to recognize in it the paludamentum or other male costume.!®! Thus the coin portraits of Flaccilla reveal another dramatic break with tradition, for on them she wears precisely the insignia—diadem, paludamentum with imperial fibu/a—that identified an Augustus. With Flaccilla the practice of distinguishing females from males in coin iconography gave way to iconographic assimilation. It is likely, more-

over, that this change in tconography reflected parallel changes in ceremonial and imperial ideology. Theodosius may well have presented

these insignia when he elevated Flaccilla in 383.'°2 If this interpretation is correct, he presented them both to draw attention to Flaccilla’s childbearing and to assimilate this essential function of women to the magisterial functions of an emperor. The court of Theodosius also ordered or encouraged adoption of this new official line in other media of propaganda. Imperial officials

and local authorities raised portrait statues of Flaccilla Augusta, just as the praetorian prefect Tatianus dedicated statues of Theodosius

and his colleagues, in order to emphasize her legitimacy and represent her Jasi/eia in various cities of the East.1°3 A well-known dedicatory inscription found in Aphrodisias provides one example, 1%4 while dedications published more recently have added two from Ephe-

sus.195 That from Aphrodisias records the fullest style of Flaccilla’s imperial titulature: solidi with the plain band diadem to 324, thus perhaps contemporaneous with the elevation of Fausta and Helena to the rank Augusta. In my opinion Alféldi (pp. 144-45) has proved (comtra Delbrucck et al.) that Helena’s headband represents not an insigne of rank but ‘‘ein integrierender Bestandteil der Haartracht.’’ 101. A. Alféldi, ‘‘Insignien,’’ pp. 26-28 (= Reprasentation, pp. 144-46), calls this mantle ‘‘das der Toga entsprechende Kleidungssttick der Kaiserinnen.”’ 102. Writing early in the fifth century, Philostorg. 3. 22 (quoted supra, n. 90) assumed that elevation of an Augusta included coronation with the diadem. Gregory, pp. 486-87, states that when Flaccilla died she ‘‘laid down her crown of precious stones’’ and ‘‘removed her mantle of purple,’’ implying that these were the primary insignia of an Augusta, presumably received at her elevation. 103. In general H. Kruse, Studien zur offiziellen Geltung des Katserbildes tm romischen Retche (Paderborn, 1934), esp. pp. 31-32, and zmfra, pp. 66-67, on the official treatment of Eudoxia Augusta’s zvago muliebnis. 104. H. Grégoire, Recueil des inscriptions grecques-chrétiennes d’Aste Mtneure (Patis, 1922), no. 280. 105. J. Keil and G. Maresch, ‘‘Epigraphische Nachlese zu Miltners Ausgrabungsberichten aus Ephesos,’’ Jahreshefte des Osterreichischen Archdologischen Instituts in Wien 45 (1960), Beiblatt, 85-86, nos. 11-12; L’année épigraphique (1966), no 434.

. SN ae

* - Pa af Ps, RBS. -ts, eal. my a*s, Ages set < oe >H ory £ oS a ee :ie é ~¢ fou * . cack 4Srwe . *al-.SE .oon .RoR “sae zs 7 ON eS eae aga * 4 aye Soe: i: “My Ss “es TSM . :3’

23 ?4:Shs BERESEND. :.:eat Pes ane Os, oePart. oreSh . Fee Se ~SS »P “”~ ‘ ;a= *. aPy s37 Ay ee Ree Fy Fons *°Rey =. ~esa7Wy: 5BPO t,omae “aye + ‘“3 “es hy wee tty Re Pw Oe ot Sl Bs wk a a “ ot ° v4 Eat EE gtd ou ? ‘at Ja) tS : Suteor. Si a a” < . ge rig” ad P FO . Fe: 2.Raspee: Ov se .ae *, ft: aw: 8. BS ae EA SS AS ENG Rr eS oe >BS EP~:éay greg RENAE, StysTee ee +ERE + ‘s ok es beet TF Rss ~2 -~ ag fos 4 3 eae reeds 53 fe ha hy %. Sie. oF asinST hh” en. Ay ae8+bios eae hoSS EN * i ae EEN vg| es a aaa enna Sos x: Pr. see i BR a er oe Pe seas Sy>et . oe RIAs gee fe: Sak — Pe2be Fo Ria oetar Fant SO ". ae non, | Ok UteoN eaee : Bis ot>ME REA oe Scie SanteREESE de? bt *£0aeSe a: : -m oe aeRe ate SaSR ee x Se 3B EWES Scone Fon eens i esRor er. eee, ae vese: woe & eeaeey&*% Res MRSA SS acne “3os Se Bee Rens ee » Soa. Ri,CoE Reee. i ape3hs

,ca See SeSe PAROS < UR Ra..mae SS. aSer i Se a a3Re ke Sa Nae eS a ee Sess 4 Bae ;oy: *, ae oe Rena: all 7 SS eeete PO Sh. ccs ORS Fs .SO seES Soe, Rie tT 4BN .* 's, Mette ee, oe ae ee ea8A ee .>‘, 2, “> ee ee a3 Rane cence xRS OUR .age A aeOTE, "4 AtBe eR ne PO Jdecom, rea Y24" es ee... mpegs StSESS ans aSy.oa toes .Peek ae so ¥OR ee i e..apSe: 3 Se Ss ake Be °aeverest Roe aes Simian " “Be aes * oD BSR BS, Ie sae Bos Bios. Se . 49 ye Pe Ee eRe ~ a, ES \ sg a ya SE EE rk Se Ry ae“ ceSpanner RE Resour. *7 net eS 2°53 He ee Sey Page Pee She RY c:Re rh Pe aeyOe Ree ae5>ae We Essase eRe oeno ReO57, eh iCS eeaa we BEON SEN S 3oePOR See. SEE ~oes FS

:Solidu igure 2 i S OoAe*atl -

Hy eee SRE eee eeCee ee ab sett ee Ben "7Ss meee i, RR PePe 5a aPOEL a SS Sebe TESS Ren Rs Feit Wares OCs: aeee taAae 3Qn . teoN Soar: NER Soe Ete‘RR £7 oa Be RRs Se rn3LR Bose ies0ee ae ee Se co Re ex RCE eet EF aed, ate cee eons Se . eee Ses Tes ese oR ee So? Reeg . ae--SRB Sear ae Rye * Sa es ee WP ie _ * wr a ee A RIOR tS a Soc ante” zpn lie SS sag EReng osP ee + .. Boren thereat °Nae Seec: 7a ae, DeSaew Sr Ber °Ti Ger erence at A ‘ate Mas By ao :. See, Ra ied ede Soe ae _— Se ed Re, SaRin, ee AE ee

. of Constantine minted Constantinopl , Dumbarton Oak A),

- gersLe PSPS - pier ek,OF Letenes Oe sB.Ps ER oe > ‘ Yad Re wae aEO : Fé fon Engl igtog bgoes Ge om, AyBE nities SSae. ee Be, ae eeSE Scene fx, Z FFSs:we tsPER 5bm Foe Fiee ofee Se eadeeents yeON ence ’Ce 2 acd oeafa aciee BPSees reeE2E > pes artes Sg . Knee eS TENS os 2, tt Ores ta? “.* . ifs Ps P Ro: 7%, Pott seat ae he 3 +. a oe % ae " ’¢ 4° ra . tr * .?° 7ay af >.we4 ies gro ene 3° Dns ata ae a , EO 3 gee we p BRS pote ER ni Seton aed ; e : gs 2... eae te ae oie ios 3 ee i PAs: en Fp PARP Say De a LASS tee: , Ae 27 a geae “* nee rsby . Ee i a8 ris ° ee a:esaeSresaeeget fore SAN Se Se cid Ke, wyae> x4.oteabie aPeek ae Poy SeEROS, grioeeR eeeR ae eb os . PsSPee aBtRoe a" bg mee Sere 4 re ie Pet BRS oe ; a B we OS See FF: . YR RE” pes Oe ace £, Bea BAG i ee ear oe EROS Sey fk gee 3ew i£,eB gas po“yo & akKept Oe s £2 eee PARADE AOS rec . : SF & i 6: Sa ve > Re wy aed gaa tec ae De (fs 2 ry tS > $e oe nets te. FE 70 Sen Oe 3 ae Oa eae Li see fe ae. 4 . oes oS Se Be. Mee ge i ie as oes ee PEE SOE Pisa Sed ‘ BS .Misi Bes og Sho a5,“aie : Se nr eneee ee Ate £33 By IFaS ahaa:5PS £: *:, &Boers gee 2 Agerae aie rea‘rise “eyie e Be fon , el awe pert Se Saasapes rae) ieRes Sea rE Py MISH Sita wee cops wos Let SRPSR > eeat ee cin Fe Ge £ J Ree Pe ing ASN seer: Pie PROS RRS og

LE ye ari cee Meee ea plage ® oer a s* 5 veg Soe areas, Eee, oe ee dad pe ees Loe eeERR Peps Soke peeroo ae” 3nae Lee Ae PArar“Rage atm, Scooter

Oi eg Hee ee a, ee Aree Se Ae Lee, SES AGE eae Aas es

ern Ne oeSE RON natn altiPF Po Rania © Ss, 4ae Roe apa Bee Be eeee Rented ge Fi TEE eeSS Ras alten SOO ee gen teerFre hn “anges :PE ae can ampere ey 8. Ske BieNees series oesae etSed oe Cae SeES gees anita Bete rs eran ixier es SR RESe RSoeSh ahBEE ne ye Rex wees BF eek, RS Ae ee ot Ese i Sa" Ra arate Re see Mat erate ne aig we eeech A Pee ata teak Seon ERee are Ae DeSSy cameo 5Ra SEN ESS, PSE ‘5Sane eek Sune one

int, PtSO Se ee Ge? Beare: Catt ao, Pes “te ee RE ell al vsee. ee oF Sonate a1pee Str Sa PS See aie Pla, eaaC boa i,ay” eee - Ngee eaPane a eoomarses etSie iea So es ace ane aeof ae "Bere pa. Bo > Sen CRPER Peeks tiie Sen ee, satiod wid “2RS Ser Ped eee SS rh Sy . Pee geen Lee ie ae 5 eee ;2OE aero ss a nn a spiincame pe Sie Bea g Re beg ga WE aE Rake eee e Ree gh see oe aca pune eae 5 ee ieBe SO” RO 5eae” *Cee see stiaBE oe DE gee» ane ° 7 PRES aw ae at RaRPP ‘/ 4sine Me é Pape eg 2 Oe$y BoP Se Biitdee oy ht

he eae Pee pee ES Ae dais Sie fe e oO€ soidu e . Tici .PRES ae ‘soiree aia Ma minted onaMEY”? 7e

ou : ies a wee .bi icinum Paris, Bibliothe 25e(1.5X e INa tothe e’

aa aliles ionale,, Cabi édaill Cabinet des Méd

. a¥Se ~7a* *&, 2:,Are + ie .ary Fs ahe,aoy, es¢ aa . * Re =*4 Ba no . td *~*~~ .4ardent Soe * . 5 J. a ae, ar ar ay & cee as a 4 a. one 2 See ¢ + > é AR > ae ie SES: “A # “a ets . +t ee ~~ Be GE dings SOR a. asl PS. . ook . . yes SE Heen Pee)

Pra Pa $, e ye abe ge SRG baa, 7 -

rhe Ayear Ppa: *edae SW aaPeae‘.ye RE .ss aaos ae - ae2yt dg rn “a Rio Bi i Co > Oe a ster ry e . _ = S, See. % =? 4EE ar5BS Ny aer ES ‘J *y.akan NOT % +A Ot aa eet -se . .

oNe >ReERE eo, ota 7sy ?.>os sr Fs oson aae eee>aan ote . -~a” a aearn Pe Saeees ee ‘Sy > *_: x4aea NSweet Om renin, .* a. ied .>

%-Ot eee a”ee RS~oSees ayyRe: > fxP eyR eres ae 2 SO ROPES: eS yy E iSie eee re Ng 2+ aon re de rs oeeS iene: La RE Re raNOsS, b> Se ee Seiz8“ee oF se a $S os 3“s et By itee MEPS *ae “tT eo sro: et ‘ rd Ey *-2%: teBe wy ao is ge x re * Ww Ne aieaeePit See tae RS .a”eS ta< aw . “3* . NRE ’ey> aves "e aSsS*oy1. ‘ ay . BERESRR Reeeese a Se.eeet

* ee I Swe minted h ’

RTOe EeWy Sr ere sents < RepSeN ARP eei aigs a=,aF No5fie 7.eee “oe PAP ES OE cae ne Seabee perenne .«”; .Ropaconane. *: Ea Pe eagonrpprennenee™ sane Mg. FS 4 . x.mR er ~ 885 a: me ON eS ¢ ae (eae 3 a 5 .. ,°senterecoee Th, > xe es Sy eet hE ~ F we ye % SSS . . * 7. yt Pic . 3a°. igure Sica‘*: cy om4Re we : “ae¥AS: . . *.pysee

Sol Pe ES , dus of Fausta Thessaloni

Dumbarton Oak (2X),

4 &, 2, | En ME Eo , a 4.8 cel Sie © StFe RCE atta heiN oe“aap *1SoaBEE Fs. Le SO ay i BOO ye el igre O% Pies” .? 4 SSO se, * gh Stee 2 o> Lee gd offal: Cy oe ete RS.

eee a fg a bay JY I ee

ee ores Po TSdias 58 geeS © EF . £ #AP 2” ey e ine 4 2 i, Fart. MSwe eS elle ag”vee: a 3 x,pe oY sere a AES > @ Se ee r wt df ee EG GOOLE OL BO LE saeco Panes mtg Pee Ses ES Gm

is tig ALS BeeeH oeRECT Sn eeeaeaeiietrt ot “I oe rere 35 '¢ F27% ee 3 +.dk $4 oh’ Sa A haa: ig Ey ER A. Hg eee ye eS ee”ne Cn . PAS Oe 7d g.,," eT RB "td 6 ies Pe Ce ne ES etaga TARA CY eee ae Chait an. 6 igh Ce oe

OR oe Eee SRR Ri GUL we ™ & NY i ee c B, . ee “ -a” 2

Ne Te Oe RF — a*bs.Pspa eae: Ruane r" ng™ eile ee‘ ,ieaEat 7aa &are anPa 2' te ign esFs Co eed « ee ee 7 } Rr $: bd seen eet, my eksES. By ae ¢ . "4 gS Dp ” ¥ “Ts vaFoy , v4 ¥} CER TR) > 3M ae »edSoeOe _

AS er aAta 8 “bee? Pe a° ’Fe, fins,Oatscteh a iS iS aeee ‘ ° ¥j. NA ¥¢ | fe Nd*edSy, 2.2 = wat ey eta«§$e a eee ‘, ?

mo > Pie ae e a ..OgSy FaNED a Seas %peas, Pa ~PONE a* FF aePa tole Sette aa Bhd hg 2sMORON. CA 5OS (eae ae Rs ee, CRPere: ERR bo eRNay Og

on ° ok * st £ “ZEer, %. Fos Be - — a oy + os ©. + ge x's * at ‘ te ae “es “ b08F

Wig RS ae QS OY ae tra ° gtr Saget oo apaaeane! ” PER eNotes a. ot eal F; e 7 See Wa peek rae oe

°* *s e

. aes:5 BPA” Mi Fit rs eeefta ateeSere iii igsSn” Meet, | ES SNE weit ahse Solidus of Eudoxia, minted Constantinople 400-404 (2X), Dumbarton Oaks

Ok Sk ad Bae Fees oF Sey BEBE EE BOSBee, Ug ee eeaRE Ee ee ae EE oO oe| et EU CeSOSesESeRe oe SE BF RODS AO AIEEE Sta RRO it aa Sis aa Aue, Fes EE a Ee EES eee ESSE ae 6 gt aeons oh Be = BSS Se Se artoee en PSUS Gi Ga Ne SENSOR ne MUSE SED SRSChe ESOM RSBN ghiC ach BnoN ds SRL eh ce RYeaten JOG 0 eS

cree aay «AE RU ETERS = RS” Rai ‘ hg WaRE ae eo Bes ee aaa ORR CSE an SS CERES Cerca ageeneee on Se ee Se ce ceecee. ae DRRe I Sane SRPOON Se EYRN eteoea SE ae RRS NY eS aDSRT WEES SESS SRRSSUES Rh SSCS RES IEE TSeen cg rea , See Aoee emcee

as Mg fose Hig g rr Ocoee ea

Soot $ REsna IS BB RtgBR age SES kom tratie nn een sitiongin eagae sy DON RE een reeetecaete tea aeten nea ee aroha te RONEN NRSee NANCY Se git SS Site, te Cae” O CRE ene RE: erate ee eee TREE ERE eee RUA ea Pent nate meeA eng She MeN PE es apa ORCS. ENS ACT Sooee CGies eeBe a

POAC TCR BR ae ooeaa Sane Atv aK OE NeeSR a eet eR ae a eR sRRSET eR BeeTR antatat hteSER Eerattaggen io teesSeaechee nea geet eDbot Ee aS RS ie TRIP og OER OESCe Be SeBon Bae RRR RIN NOR ae Bee hr oe eSEee EEeR Bees CLDinAREER ANS Be AERC a BegNSee aeRE npn nenaRENCE os sentSSS ae Sa Rg EEE IR: OooFeRe ees ORR eS ihRR Oeoneee ie ema, Ft SR SER SUSE RES BOR geoaee SRS ERR Re Sono SSS RAR: ORE "Shoo Ge Se sae So PUR Re Onn ane aE SE Be Ee Roe ae. ee oe te eae ge eee Pg itech ee SNE Cee i Ate BORER a Sot RRR ENROL ERR ee ResROR Sites, «Be San Orca MORN SieeeSeeeRk SOS Be pig creeaScot oem cages cee ac Site sharemi See EN SRN RS SRR keRUNDE i RC Seteca eer TOLER SRE aN Dooeripen ee age”aahaa aes

els REE SOR BNE Ee oe PRS ARE RS Se EES Se Ae a ee ee See Oe LUO SSN | ee eS fee BES ELS BOS SRR ets aes Bake, aks Ge ee Ee ec a Se SS

See eeSee Sf eee eeCNCEe Ne eeRNgE SPUR RTE, e Bea ee Cen CEC Gee Sor Gn a OR CSE SDLee AR eS eeCheerios Cae MET Be Se cag sins gs oS RR EE SES ES aN SR ER a EEG GE Dep eR Ag Ee Sa Ra SM A Sg Sipe er ee Pe cin tents teeaetega age tana generate eae Seca Decca | patna mages sarees aca eae a Sek ae LSDPRR ERNE I. “ARES Ohta, “ons Pe TORR RON SEN A SDRC RARE oe ee ae ae Se ae ste

Soepoatenv Ses se ona aNEeee ROR SeBie oieaSie. AoEeR Gaerne MeO OR RNREE ER enTL EOEan eSRaE Ma,aay BtSO” ahaa: ee, PanSRL oman. tee eeeyieee Seen geome TEENIE So em ae LOREEN BREORE stay ee” eset attest th aeSe ~ Menta eae “OD panies= i

PES RR RUE ee SE SPUR IUNS cae RST RPO RENEE ERS. Oe oy Ua Ae A ees BE REO DOOR aI PCOS ct ieee

PO RR RR RRUS Ee RaeLe tas eeeRN aN SERRE MS ee ee ermaneni See ies cues Po 4 Ce: Re ele me SSSA Se SEE RS SR ES ESR a 9 LE ee SEC RO See EDR La ee. Sone Sede * 4-3, 7 See SE ER Re Sicudnyasenhbuce inane aa See as Cues oer ae a me OR EERE ER Ena cg . ae Be LoS as Ronenne hein heres Beno TEEN RISES STI Re TT Sg safnieheesabipeiseegerseecsieerae engrigree sedate ioeterseretesetenage es ASEM NE IC REE. SHPO SERB, «ake : BRO RO Cee in een le Se Sm PRE Reena Malas ne eNO Oe

PeeO SERGE gE Bag OAS ee TRE ORRee he,AISI Sn oT RO eleee SEAS Raa RENat Panne cssDe ac RSE aSe ERNE RESIST Eat teerent cat ncn n SeatOanonacmneremen os neta tan Bee nsing x4: ‘ Sees SESS cSOe ee BrERS Beto eReSR“ SeeSR "enREE RentSR ia Sela SRen MIN te tePyfcretecstetarat ek Sseab BERRA ENS NR Re MCS GRE CaN GEE ERED OCpeal NR thet a SeattRR OEE NUNN RaSS UO ale EER SERGE RAG eRe Sek Rien: acta ae gM aees S©

Ee ee AoE eneSE RN CRreRR ROS RIES Seep ong siete ees Sprache SNES. So MCR PcaCees eee,Ae erBe eentoneee we pee SSee oe eS pave SreeGRRE ah na cee ERE erntelsien rae oger ie aeeaR ree2Ce een eee che Races Ser etiede ones PRMS ROBR SE eaitat cna wes > ams a econ

Spe a Se eR Sn gh Rs oe Sc auntie oe ein ORNS Re SRM haces ig OER Ee Nc NMR See ae z Pasa ae 4A es eeENE aeaea petite ee EPeri cer Sh Os Me Bs ee48. oe Soe BUR, gee TOR SE OR ReSleeeBF 4..Be ESE SEE a SERS RS je Se, Nore aesee Proce DE ate ageSeLeEO Sy oES., SRss es Menem nue tou, oe, ea OF: era aa es Pater AF ENG Petgras es eS Nee RS RR, RNC I SO, ae MM eee GOR COE pate ne [2 ee FS tty EE ina a Ra ose gh Se a REDS te core Ae RASA: REEL GP ann ta ORS A gepag RAEOSEETR ERN RRRA SERS OR RAC DORR RSE SRE TI ae a mae “2

SR ESS Aarne RR Se ic SSIS OTST EE a eps N Nt SEN Fake Be BR Se i eo COONS Roane cia Soe rer Ne RRS ee ee at Se ae z.: Rate a PCRsega ec Ga kis RR a RPS Sn OnORO RE RRR DU ESEacecneermen Bs RC | STORanaes Aree As aa Sls aly as SuaCARs sat Rt ianeotiaee pep RAame pee ee SOROS, eecaieee heSc ne3cahe SRS NON Be orenae ce eh s oe oeBa og Rooney are aes oe SUL hoRe Mame Se BetehoN ES ee TORR ONfame ES,Soca Ree ais een on Broce a eee eesaied 2 Bao totenen REN Se sab MS Pts WMG recta Sot ee nana URS SR PSEA Aa te OR ae Sh ekg grasa tee Siie.. meres «3 Eo WR”: eee Ee eReBae RSONS, hh EE at Be SR ER APEC. ROR ne Rae EMD SEC naa ont EDEN Renee rast RA aRY Ee ice NOREEN MRIS "oe ae ee, Oe Sal RRR MOSStereum Popeater CR POLED TOL, LS See5Suse + £46 Ngmieeeens as 25 s EUS GRR OSS PES Se Soe RRS Siebe SES ELSE Re ES eae Re. Serco SRR EM ti ECR 5 Re a i Sh oe “8 RES 3 eeeaagers CRORE RRS EER On EMER eoiaetacene Aoy Soni sce oe SNORE nea.meee caredire ee ee OS POET Re ae aEEeee CESSES eRcis Rg CRir“aoe: reac aetas oager - WARREN ee 6See SR. SESS SiacSe cysES eeSee PN eRCRP ce SeaeORI ae ets eehae ae Dinan ig ae Scania aekird aeaaateam basse aan e TE>eg ob Sa

ee EER eck a Ae Se RS Sree ee: .2k eee as . ai:ee Y RON po SeeRARER, NG ReQh EONS Sg Sea 7EER eeSRR ae Basin estat igen ee Re ances at . ae, * ering. ae 2: a, Se a ee ee,ORES, ae tee OSSD ho tLene EE SERRE RR, O SOT oD ORE RCN RS Bie . % oniae2Sa ae: ‘ +;ee

et i poe Se Seen es ga RR Gen ee oo REN a Ce ag “ot “ we Es itt i

1EOieCRE : PS>ee NS ae a a eR Se SES hoce yep oeeeereee er SS Been ae ANA SB ae RRS RS SS sol. C2 ws 5 Tah ag ee AL, RCO RL a RRS aEeMeret: SECS ipRane tenaaeey SR ee osay sot. fae FD oe. ..ee:OoIEN AES iyee A eeaaa ie oR Re RN .EE COREE ey Sol Renee etetaeae RN, Recicriee. “ganic aaahie. One RO EYeCSea eRoe NSRNON RCona ORAS RRS SR RAINES ane oe tTa SRS SCS se le ee. Rte Hegre ngae Big NOMS, Sh Se Mali SEceennea DEE SR eae Bag Ri aEEAN enCN aee Ruscraneore “Saat “2me ees Be +2 tt. aa PORES Se Bese SERN eR RG NORE YO Berean Coe ee once “+ PSS Set ~ ot paki eeoNRe Sseenigae yera oahee a Cee Rea weetRtnBava aegecnen rs APO maURNR NCEE Ee as BY POORER oe ut SR oe. OIEGa SSS Seach e oiesenetapi pest atatariey ROSSSaeee” oie, «. SMA. GUE Ca Se EAs ce BRS RR AER R RSPR NER TORRES a eMES cs 2 Ae ae SS: oe

ee Se, se Pe Re ke Soe an Ps . ae eae - “3 2 wae re e$

SEES RESIS SS re SR ga RARE acto gaan ene SeERROR AS Nie SR 5. RDAs, OC CREO MEARC Farge ae a ©TES eeeSe vor 4¢ SE Re Se Se a SESE SOSreece ESRD ENS RONee POLS SRNR SMAI ot, «ae , RRR. Sen RUSS EE Eebe.Ro iaBeBa: ee ee hemi ; eeLOT SeAtaRN sa,GRNS Ee 2% SESS Senn, ature Se tee co egoe intoee dctee eateries ae Prine teh EE Sig arrears we iebe re aee te At". te,tS a3 ig ” + a. wn “3 2S Pea BRS eR AMOK NEN mame comme SORES, SoS ar NS ROR eae Diane Maer tor Goa ik etic, pale Ror oe REPO, aN Ase * : me Wane, ete % Lg Ae at an 2

SEES I peBS SaiAte. Pe Re ee CERES SS ECS Rate a SS ee SNS aa ane Aerriamrnane t SEES “BBRPTET4 Ae SEA RRR ORE aesaeeee PRO RN ee? |_aeen ae eee ae See, ES RE egaeee7nr

Spree celsnentin ee Sabre a en he ,aie poet y SERENE craetetnne ee SRS SC eS So BREOE at pene PO ARERR imams eeaae ae SCRE oe, BORER EN UR TCS SRN SN Ag 8pane OR SERENE: USNR SEN cot: aso Re ae URI: RSPR oeghee ON) See Bi beMRR aesSRE SARS ee“tars Sage he tee CnSO hs achro} eG MOR ST: ee oT a3 : RES eae 2ee?ae ‘ "‘:et-:,;3¢ es aSO ¥ Ss Se ae SR ai rie. ECR SRR oe pe rps eens RONNIE, Feee = SEES Macey aPe RAE RON RRS RA: 2h SRO TGARe OR eeBee” DRONE cor San rn: aoe TEES age a ho eenSeS tePeom See TNRE CR Ra eee og arcERR ae Soaharnies fan” 2m RE ‘hee. . 7 Boies “e :*Ee ’;

Seennas: a Sk Sy a eis SEAR, Ta ENSURE AS CONRAD, aR ORE Sete CO SRSae Peie eeePO ee” >a2 Bee ; : "Ras oa oa ee Oe Pe Bees Bete eeSRS: aetion eeTos eae oe ieeeeTE e: ee sof rer Beso OR giON ree i aIS aa SN ceA, Oe Sean BARR RE ieEee NN ee RNeNO ar apaE aes Sp al aa"os Se Bs $3j %° RMN COE SON RE. a Raat oe RN. gE Reb NN ae mg RRS AO eck a cri+ Se aee*&ZRt &Z SEE RES a ee RE A SM eae BricMRR pepemta aaah SERRE eRe -ee SOREN: MRS ISOMERS SRRR DER REDS. sas, SoeDash a Sic NY MEARE SSE tec eeeapn ER eed ER aBate, PREPESOS RR ETN, LAER.heSedA AS6 *ORR tre $4g 4&3 4 Lee SRSRee ORES eeREE, ete BeeSRC GascaRae a Rate a Se aeCREDS ON Sg OeSRS Resetieee eee Re ac nema was: Se Sie te eee? cS SE “SRR ReBa atepa ae eetapeaninecct SiBe Bee eeSO aeseSeBeet f° Poe REEee CMON. Seater ns Sage ERNEEps IRM CRTSRR SERN RRR EO Ie sete earn aR RR eae RR i Ctice Nh Secs63Sit Bege a 5%ES geos ce Beit: Skea, SOR ora E eibeens Eating Aan ge SEN SR, 2aR EERE AR ERE 2k SERRE a Ra a aRe. a “samme reasoned TUNES age. Sue ee ER neRe RE Nea De SRE eg .pee “Rees 2 te 4$43 pa es aSOR PE SE ES | ALAR eR cE. Sm. 2giAian hei eee TOR, SES Reee| Rt Sr eepone RE ae ae Ban Perce soe Mee S ZSoa” 232% 5£.ioe So SEAR SRE ARID” Re “RR eee RAD A RE SE, Te id ear Se RENE SC cers CRC ay Sat ae MRR Ss ene EL eC see % eeat* Seaeecee eee hae er oa at tee Seer ani eaten by oe ee Pn ES A pec a EEA PORE PR Se eon eaten ‘ ean Be. Or om 1 |- Be SeaSab os Ramee, cae*me ooSnore a, |) eeeRae Fn. essRD“ eee oeNe”ae $rie7%. oe % #4 BB ee Sica ca, Sie Se en a .Naaa he Ae aeBee esSE * EERE 44 at ee oe Bee | bat Bash “omen spree HMR eee Se.‘Hee ee See | ND PRET LIES eSaae oe aR,Ta, * .“oY 3 P *a“HEL eo Pi Se» amen: I | ERED, “one PSNR A nae RN RRR. Thenc yn RT, am atsRR asNe Scr Bune foe! a>, ARNON Mae onan FS ge Wee SS RS Bitte, "aamenentr Tae toeRADA ee Shorci GRRE i:ed“Ete, See hae =AOI” + SORA eeetececa ne teeezg-:

ci eehecee Ko Reece, PRONE PigSeR. SORE ROR ERNE ORS> Roscoe. =:*,©|0Se, Meee ROE ; *37;G Be3HK 2Pi ReBees endo. per, Seon ioe DER SO. EME, + keeper: °SRS EES i, Af z $s Ree eS ee: See the se Ue et -, Rein See Si Ranaaoe aaa OR, See aiaSCO RSE ERROR +s * + *Rt ACRRRRIRRNAD ceca PO mono, Me” Oe, ¥ih aeeseet oh SS aSkpase EN EEE ae: ee A ie: ee 2s oe are ee oe pee y ch. nae Cries eee OMe 3 eT er ees Bo Se % Sis Doak Sewnee” SS vce tn a .OF Re. aes teens Sea ee rents eewe Ca OF nae ee Paty =) =. ae ae SBOE, etPane. eek Sinaes saeéee gt:cee RRS ibe: Stace se aaee og * Suan RON okFee eaeAeee |aSae7Sae i33‘ Sete one Pe Someaaecst ae ae Be acssence | Remon a ae Ogee aed "5 See - “ Siu GRR Ne NNO cere “3 a7arae 5S$ ER OPES easBes fsRice SeeWnnoee ant - oeeas: eeSeGeek, mp, cope bnSNenare & Pe ee SSS pees Catan gt I oe : £Sete. 243‘” 3 ° OO RU “ Bee * FOO on * SE: See me Sige & 7 iy q ; ,3ate AN SSCL CS, SER Me RRS Sh SRR ANB Se Onna, “RRO , Be, SES St EERE NENT, “CRERRN RON my oe inh, "> «2 BREST RE ee. Se Naat & co oa

RRS TES Ee RSE, sao AD on ae oo ROR 1a Borne Rees, ee See om 4 iain” 2! “s oo

Ae REE SES eyRCT SER “RSE Pigs ge SS CoRR: SEEMS Sane Rh,Oe RRR SOEPR Sa”oh RY OAL LERS, OMOEA? ceeee +2 Reeg i eewe ae ,nF er 3 =ifares DARREN: SO See tke te oat aa SEL aRRR sees eagas aeroPe Feie, Ee re ee sth, RM°."Ri gaSSee “a Sebamed a are E : :a: ee SE a4See. Pe ROS EOPANN RASRgee gee oe Seri%naman a San Tehaseere >iRi Pteaoe, De, pSaRee erie REO to RD R: $5:an4*4,::oo.t oeae SRT. App Se SLIEMA ON.” ee SNe DRE RR wn 7me , “ .23. SEES ae ; OE aects a Sead |eae ‘3CL, Sa ise Ranee re a eo SR tetas saan ee

Sea oS Se ee eth eee Se ae, Re oe ae Re Se : aatee, eo ES: oes OE, oie éSee ae Cae en aaee eis ORS oySte . eRe atene nee iOm eeRB H oF -EE *we 4¥: ¢ Ne xPires . at3 eatin Seer eR ESS aGe aee |“Hae aS Rageamor pe Shae: aad g¢e 7bar “Pee Ea eeae oS cea a9Oem TeSe. Sty Se Omen iatMere SAR °i? BO ane RO Re a poe ee aoe, Te ORR Yee ger, ne 2 ak | ee me a ete a Seek SS ote TePRR | oleae2Sapien See eS 2 as ARO : =hee2.=ES Peed BS Gee weSee yehee, gle eae NS Saleh AS Deas PRN CORT nana Wa Ras “MineSg tek! ” eee ae PIE “3 peomune ge We, vets Re: 2% Feiss senese“fs, Ee deSema” | ¥" A ? ze. vs , gee SER REDS: Seam TERTHann RRL pea Ene ieee SCM Fe.age Pes ey NRE PRN ccneasedy MEISSNER SHOEI SRNRRuane NCS RUNCORN, « ait.9“AE, Sa» Ren;< Ren 34 ;? OREN OR Ye &mtof ES. Season eraraSai ees OREM! S47 Senate nee tarot eelSpee Neen eeeee eee >. aa GRR ace iaR penean Rieeiogiegicican a xFor < Pl, ve Rhonnrcany =ORS SAMO Sy itai ane SOS eeay wepttatatet eats itisETN ORCS fe” telleta sateen arate ental . eb 6+ OER ROCCO JEN Bae NoNE Ce MR! Me Seteat - $tes Pett ne % aes SOC retat ce tate tieara alla ae gees ashame) er eet aa Dee Ro MC Mh ee eS RESEARCH 4 td M4 . >=Oe at2etSACRA RPCR IN ante eGee EATER CIES NERO sh PE AS Ohate PORTER TEAS ne Soo. =~ ERC RRO Seo DES voiAD aehc aat\ ew TEARS ie” _ PE SIRs aDNy iC! Uno atatatetataea! ‘. Ci be eile tested nee aretarin merge TEESSIS ete OM heMMO ee See OLE Rae nd =. QO oatraens - oe inetele, ele steleComte. ae*.ee tates BPO ed ERP AMO ain astats ME PEEL NNURERERSRRERRT an SRR, a “3LK ou. :sue * >oe oe SERRA ciatecere celVe tetetese oteSan Seta Rie nOCeN Renn SoTOE. >,Rene SOC5,ze FOeS etBL Nos > SRR ROSIN oeiiSRLS amosae ESSER ES." ¥ . .t . . Oe 3nc RAP ee CUTE teeter eegt aaeTee egy re PR >, soo . ee EEE ERO AE OE me “. te se spent ce SEU te chia NRE ER TERT ES a le es aw oe SER Ran ReMi aa eS ESS en oe cee, lls . = we 7 tT ae + Anaypr neh ace nae nA ata Orcas” £ BRS cea Oeiea > CRO oeeeaie ea hao re; . en Pe Se EA Mm -aston 2ena SS oo GREETS RES OEES SERN Rabe erieNTS Ree icon: recs lta. Ife teetes * SSE EE ee ee RSE eS SS Cee Me eRsedRS Ra reaent Rerar stalemate Se ess: aE aeaaa Boo ATES Re Boi) ge ORM ONS GET OnE al -“a* a “Be MSRU BeMRR 7teO° cote ae RR eSes CRE Pen sceorf i _Ee " -aSane Rane Beatie eget! INSECURE : we + ce gee” “ rennciehriate SSAaekisetanes chr REE a

Pisocesei centenary rae: ete xsoo, .. -wet Meee leat TSIM gata Te ele eager sptSE lalate’ “ey pMeyte on "et . Bae ;4 ..*ee te RIES RRR aSea Rei RSG ONSEN NES red 1. eR Ste oy oe Doe. tet att ne etagadate SeMtehibS tots cotatetnda’ ayataret ate PON Sees eMart = “st Ma ¥ ° Re % Sh Neneh Brin Rio SSE Aid POOR Er State ar aed ee . > ee > fd be RSENS Naa gL SSE LOT ne Tepe tate alata ote la th tata! cont .‘3: Soeti yg Lt . we , oe ™ SS SS SES NS SSR NEORES RSSSR STR SRE SEC MEE SECURES SESE oe . vos ae. we. , op . SSE Ritts SON loi SRS UREN BCI SIRT SRN ASR MSR as . Pr rs Se iH SESS ane SAR eR cE US Ee RHR SEES OS.-:“.-aa -s eee, Ss, :>Traeatigottes: SORES SRC STE REE SPREE SET a} >-* xa°.,% eR” .Cae SIRES USE Cu an citation eet ESCSiR RED ig e,a*Ss APONTE AS MEN SRL ER Es SNE SIRS ange ete + TS. 4 ERY CEERRNSI eice SeRAS E be > Re caee eee ety heh alah aptanieentn - %8

-_- 8.a:¥oR’oat egies gene tgtg :Fs TARE netaSARE nepninineiite epearinareinee - e 3* fo * =SERRE Race NeSE RR EN A . -: otf -o " fe . es, a sae TERRI ca unncinndunenetuinnenacsueemrnn nner, :

SURE OR SSeS an| ee: oeMORSE or SiRAL renee to eames inten ate > SSE oe he > & LL SESS”UISIE SUPUS SENDaEO SEN ghey TERE REESE SAWS UER REUNITE Ante eh, . . > or SON ¥ SEM attire alate . 2. See . Ra secnsottarctaantebiaseantatetstenetateta Bee FESS‘ sg Ne as: BB a =SNS eae‘. ets - x . $ SSG aicccnmeiaeaene canaatcha et BRE, ity .So Pt 9) ae a%Pannen oe RES Reis anh page tosa=¢ee “ote . Coa - |RR SRS noenindan ORs, Mien ene e: ‘Kee he ateOR Sees +REE ow , . eo. ‘RRR S RSR Re bio ha 8g Siar eae POORER % * . > ee Tainan ah eta “Eanes “,t 2st 7. . RS SSM iNeed Lae: RS teat un 2 aa ‘on Sa RPE ey hd oa hain’ key . « SERRE SS ROR ONS e Le et il ite . 5 DROMRMRBE Stcct: "eT S had We ooo “2 Oh FURR TL iptaaboencg stead >. =.. seratieate *2 vee’kK ST henge =? - whet oafe =. -7+ TRS ag Rance f eat t> ape RN NaN an ?Sect fon, he sn SAL a°eee . .. On I.- apes 1-27 Ree oe RO Se Ae ey ~~ COS “eg 3-1. +SRNODE SRR Se eee Rene eo. .- :ON ad ‘.ane SR RS *Sgt *So om -Siete eco *e.ARReSa ees MORO ORD sient .wo. Pen SUN Sas vale? “ te 2feehassesanmnecinnotehbatets SSRIS. 2see- “oy TR Saath Ry5 of ieee ieee SE es «ts Te!SRS .2% . EAS behd CSD MEMO DIR SeOi EN ata eas late hearSERRE EMSRS -i. - .hh ee ORME > ee Fe -?ve.*%, 4, BepRieete YEE SeAD es hte. ee x-bs-. -Ss oe >... RS Rie RSE 3TS i i: ee en ‘ee °Se rAd * meaner 4 oor FSS Renmin ae PERRET, Sf |..awe .. ratetete! . 7, +> Ma UPR etn Pe rr Pra ue zt ESE aha gage SOS ea, Se ante “. ¢ os Ape” Bee tat ns BS an ba a re: x eee Shanahan gt SATE OO a eee Mes bones oo ne = ge eee ORR ee! “ oF SEES a FETS ETI US Sas a a. Th. < : Foe Sas SE Ax. sagt 42 ggase Se < ae 5", *__ TRBRSRR SBS ata Torey ig eee PRR A 3 5 ag * * 3 ee TAL CUTE : aii < _ SRE CSe tie: jie teat oe) Eg ea : ~ eels ' a . nce. orb ass viene oer me iaetpee el eS get aorsTere 7 PONE ate tithstecbstacst nie Senate > a2Co ee PO 8eh Secela toe eae age Buiaeerecenee = tele oo teHOC IRB he, "s, Tee LDeeinen + ONS seh*aotos Coen ww eo *Tn * . . BOI RRESE SORELAS SRE aES ROMER eunctO PS. nrMi ied ta, = SORES, Ol *:-2.7 SS varatets ZS 5, eaten . oe 4 tess oN : a OR . ee a Sakae oe OEE gS Sg : a aed af ee SSeS Rae TE SS 3 “* et |S Th, “sle7 ft, + SR SS SPR EN ee or ae a et Benen an see aise | a rr ‘ - + ee, | eta, 1 se eR Siete eee 3ethno SSaR, aoe ieee id pcece apres "4 - ,Fy BsNate tel SSRENR +e Su2% RSoo, NieaeeS Panseneid Seater. Se AM an aca aa ee, ARE teaR a LS .era . *USES PRR MM NENT Sn -SF ARG Te RENO ie Se ean NOR, gE go” reaatetatetanas :. AE eae SSSR -~ae +“ase: . echzns Sieh te“ASE Sean PE RO Sas Steae aliRR teee tee BS tsSe, .ae PERO Ceaoo: oaog foe Bs Sts Pas. anit ESR SE ea Cen SRE MEG . 3ossccsoeagteatennamtn : nn aAeneas UI - “ORR, ees,+Of RR, nner eT a SCRA SS See EE Ra tite, -_ &aSa&-ate aareen Lag ee MR, ot— .. *“-aeSRR hee =so. +sn eae ee: See See Ut BEBE Genoameoene ae: Me ~ 7 Bee es oy OS SS agian “SET Shean Ss as es -? OR ee ee sans Rone ER Init satan ae, Bae oreo aro 4 : * 8 ee peesaeste Pearse Renee ae ar “2 SS 7 +: a . * 7 = RRR Sy ~” Sas. Ra eeES anaemia ae Hy mes Cook saaRae ot p> Me Re eo Ane sais Gena eRe (cos Bipiemeen ott ocaic «th>-tie legaston .Ree, a< SK att t a CS ek REMC NS ME SEIN Mieke . . - ” ork Vee cts she ate cre Seat

Ni Ure SEIN uae3 eRe. a enbd Sagan SS aU: CRAG oS . i MLN SRR ION Rc RE ReneS TESORO oN a SSE Se AES > 7>IRRRERES ee -. of eeER StlSSgsSSS x ae caeraentt LOSERS cnt Betae ng ne -*~ 2Re. Bere cciatateatetettetada ciatdtetyteteriries tes ceeiene, neosaE, phe fe "or PDR Seetl Ete Heat SEUSS SORES naeTe> 77 “>| 7Sea UNTg attest TISGORE SUR Aten sitet cosa fatten y rr: So aga ~ ioe ‘ CEN * ecient er etSp CUT lino aisTON aN . PE A wotsatonste SERENE ok Peohne Ce

SRNR aeERENT Lette, SNE Oi MetArt tetas < ¢ : 4% = ataSenne eee oe ate VALU a ey a - ERSSS. oe Toa, r at oPalos; wt va;Seaman Ss Pe SECTORS RRR REERE RUPEES OMS :.De aBh a ee oe eeOn ee ate SS CE RSOISMED or terrane CHET geOO? I SERS i,ate re ftetMMR nae DR ORC Oey Oa Sa +Sa ea ieee erih +Se LieieS BERR SSaiearaieieciatatanas RE GOEL OL SeRSE Bes oe seOR hori east State ST tras Kes Re - RO LINN TanRTE gn! liletal elAllis . Rat ae Steg aie Be ORSON AOE rege tan Ss Ula ERT Ieee eatser, aese ARERR . UO Rr aE

SMES Bei oi : a Sie. ida ca UTES tone Ree Drea hs mi Ra . x, to Soe ae oe ae RE SOI ne

CIOS eaeCee! so, te i.7 Oe ’ ace. .URC SHRED USSSh SeNaan ae Fag. bg eT *ea SeBang ne TR See gn Geo REOORT | RESSEES a Batty ReWee le Seo TERA SAR DIC | ERs Le ee en a See CTE Ep TA ATES CE Tetor al me.:: ..rs‘:By.+ .-LRT aS ee SOE eRe a ea oan erence seat oF me ettSe SRE ee:aRe +” Sa, REN Sipe, + ba eet oe*NRO RRL REBEL TER NON Sara Rt+ORs >Rs Boe a oot a poo gn eeTi hao? Bai . giana EOE LEO elie aint taae.Rb .COS Mitet lated retecee Daca i ea NL 5Sm aago> a .‘4 Choir SRR Snam OER MEIC Cae ess ;asteceten .eS SLRS TE A mee : : one ah Eas Re . . Oa RRR Soon SECESISEEUSRy te aa . : 2 BRR einen neni Ue oe ae Seeing ery 4%, * ” ane Se OS “Se CERISE ea TRIN Se nr , . PR oe So i TLE eat eee SPSS CSS NS as 2% ss so . Rape eties See oon SR SSUSnL ASE RRS REM RY EOSIN eins: :eS * Sees rae Sere Seat eeSane Satna ae ph, .ate a . wae poor. >S=ee * S Beas, Saree ReeMae on . Ase woe Cone ER AMSG SUE eae OeOR sete er. ‘ee -. >KA “SR . 2oR ieES o aioe 9SbBeit ste aan rafa. satan Rat Nase ena iJTe aN .ethos Sie iecteti CERNE SRE Teagan ee“TICE aDr xORIERS SI no RL SSNS REO .nf .oi"ee eC oO gS

Tg a woe area ane set “erBe Lsmg Se SSIES wee aeRh ee SEU Sat“Ge OU ‘y. -“Ss 2oO at- ees ea LE inate aRRS 7, et HePd Rta ENR 2aThe CaSeCINE eScerSAS Sl SRS oS Re att 4< -*¢sg

oa“|Ra: Po iCpe, aRE a . Te oN ote oe ee ea Ena aaa eet tat ayRR Dx 3 soe eS 2. 3as *ast . .a.” aes 2”TL Ss, Sere say Fa WIRE DT SATIN Ti Sn RRR iar et = aie: Ser °VRC +em gy eewee .ore EO ee eeoP ey SOon RE eee Ph Se ge aw ee «Fs Satie aeFae ge Ne ce RST OEE AMS LE RGR PSS DEES .. la 2 .7nT . -FR %. ‘Wa +. ee Se . . «Re en a EE et Saget at FS. sper. * < .eae A am ’ LECaCe RSULE Tarpatie oremPend eatePRare “” Tea ie . MSC * 2Pe aye a ETM pees Rees

/ ¢ fAdd about life-size, ca. ,

| { C i]

Be Fee,

Perron bs altsSees se re Sate of, aSo tePees ed dj Ee j aeee Pehe eae

EE, ese ora, Mera eee oe “Oi ee Ee Dinas ie ?

EeeBeane eri aieeee EE ee EEE steelers sen, a Mr eas EE SUE Lae ge ieSs te‘. a”panne gt ae POEs Sa MRIs HE eete ee: Saxe tee son RIE: bride ,eae iL oie Bon ea ens ae Oe ean ae bint Poe erste tae AIC can ete Bante .* i ;ves aaes i2eeee meaeare se re Ee iis OE teat RKO RE aeae i i; Ree ::a:;

DD Meet ¢ o i P gig oy ogg ee Ce GyoeEe: eng eSens reine inet 2: og tte A reeae Ae eee hee” aeens : LL TEESE aenigra * : ;ye** pepeti ee,oese

eeEGR + +” aie OS cee oe aoe Anow Ene Re FA anee * ;oe Bee eer ee ig, aaPanne ge 2ee 7. nsate :oeTeae eos: 4Cte ities one :Bee Ce nS, ‘3 ss ove + oe ST ee : a * te nee < . ’ are nee Mid % PE ea Re ’ Ss, tt ag , | \ : :y /:— * ee, ors ear ies EE, ve sienna Senet ayeerst eatin e Dae .’Bes ah Rae, he tee” 38 im 7eres 7Ly ae +5 : Be sce £ Feta eee ee ere, 7 Sia, eres “te, ." flees ae eee ee ca :oes oy oloe. reenact ety : “S 5 eae os Lege ds eee _t as o co i, EE EES ee Be ? * $ aes dl e. e Ga # A eee Ee ee aera fo, ae ‘ te Cty eee ee nee oe 3s, es, t ae cn is Dee ee: pees ae A oe . 4%. Prenat i ee ae ae oa gd aa ar “yg Dep Oe bie adit “tis oa oe ee ce ante ce ¢ 7 Sy BG aes: # BS ee boot tae enone ea B ae Be anes tie Roe "lg ote es eae . oe, rt Aaatre roe Cra yee

oe éier 4 ‘Pgs Rectan 4B PEE. se Bee ge, Pace +, Din “es Begg Bigs5Bae ar nae % pesca PEeen OE aRennes stars 4% Be. senses a2PA Rsk Beers Sasa paee Bee tT.Nar “ty,Oe gio EBS tBape CeeNae Rosaceae ~~.area 2 oats 4% be eras Fs £ae, oe ES

* 4% ah GF BGeeUBe 22eae 2, os ee aUe psec +2 Me, My, “gt Be eeee~%e .og oF. $25, caRte a cae PER +CATs eee EE Baga ae . in, FE Og eee ots

ee tees mk. ~ o> -2 * B®4‘.ae “aa, gee fSes eee |ee te, fps... a_BO” as a* pita ee, 2 «ls igs OPE EE ae% eer ee oe reagents yt Re ae Pi rent me |— ees: “ge ie a ae me tgs ‘ Lie ghey oBerar goes Loe hieteas cn orem 4 Taee ee Pe Bt,fuer. , e.Bes *. MS EE 73 ee nae gag on ie : 4 Tee 7 26 “. 4, yt . E. eee a ve bee. en ines Petey A FOR

ie ¥pie 5oy Be Pate we ‘ a Bs eee: “34% .:%, Ree eyrena cee: tea 5aeoem Se ‘aeee oy es F>Sonoran PS ¢ee ee earns Mehsana SPER, Oo*saaies eryscaai.ae 2Ses * Pye Ug & an _ ,fa . ence ee Banat Re sonra pe yy Pare ues $e, feern . 4‘: “ fed tenRR ee Re raciantencagie Ee“43 ae "Peles aS SgSr aeae ees,+es: %“> pemtres hd 8 “FZ 4% he ‘fo ? *% “ie «3! ie z ° Soe “i sens : oe ee, connFS nf YT ia ater Mees veeeiciaee aeSa GARE ees ee A “Beehcis . a, eee ; a £ oie Eee we 1% # “ie FR Bee ORE oy ey Se em ; + Roopa denna arate SEtot olf f44ee sce t , es 2 Rare a?* Ssnesaenes ge 7%. RE >Pn *gr ove, ae eae rg aha zs ee Fd 7eae * he Soe Poy sot ee, oe of re , 4Bt ae: akaces penser ee aan i; ‘be tae “bo 3es;es :.Bee “Gee *°Repo |eee ee $2 Beat Bera ee a Dy , oF, ee eR Se? Saaaeniae es & SE Fs 4 gi 3 d%pene: eg aan gt a ie ” ettaead eee, EER “,7 OBS Rae,

ey .° ,§sig fo ca Oe re Be “aut 77: Tyee 2 ae ge: | eae? fae ee eg7 . fag :frs a>&$me, a4- i, ee eae

Seagena SUES ee SOE Ae es EEE % Pn ag Tee BS . : e, AEE SEIS, Boeeretecnanic a a Se ee se ow. ., ae +e cect SLU

Ee ata Sierra eane eae t Beatinctt Ze rr eee 2 oe, aan suites tose meheia crete +7nascar oat ap*en BeRope nee veeR pS Eiraa THREES SONot TRIS ts A,%feoe OS aPoa tee, oes RTS MSI ee2,HBr ate Bee cea rn" See #Be Seoroe wee eared

oes ceis2S Suga . we §rs : SReUSSEE SEE ee aSe Rist aaatas: 7 Se -3 * as |LSateemteceernsoes a Re P scar oa me + SERS eRe

eee nS x Rs eh “ot ie REM R ra ceoe Caer reCL. is a “ee. . ene atiicatad Inics Sotatitate act Se Te or.aan ere ete RRS ae SEU : CRIP te Site Ramanan) sincera oS, “1 .fa . *east Be-baSeURO Renee ENSUE SS BS aR =. OR_™*| _ee>REESE ete Woe ane, heed a setts eat terete Pitan Ra N Ar eien iconic te SSeS CORRES ore: CEES ESyf. anePaahotennete eels FHts a *Sears molaSoestraabets Spooner mere OMe ete Tg itesheays aePODSE Soe is RG an oC 2" ee a ee

wtclseath cat 3Saag PES ee a“tat ty . 5cay a leapt ge sania EESRRR ROR seta ete tyeEee ahaa tetete ““-a Snes SCC saeettte et, ae reat ataetebl italae etaPP ae 2s. Beis” eine gatas =. ee . CEEENACES feedings nee Sa ” Beeeseiaeeesereotay

PetreeEno wae we raneniie cote| ory a Poboniier = oS Bee ee * st eR eee SEES ee . gear so . ‘ + See SER» Pub oarasets

pee POET ioe RESO Sense ee SEE easat en ee .anes oy hea i io SegE a7 ¢ ¥a eines, PeIneceicnatonat

ISSSStraeceenaeeten ann. S tat * 1Ee SRS SRR eae . : aS eae . te cre sna ne teh HORNSeat: HO mata SSnicaneS Ura sent aREeae SNES BO.0 eR, reeRae . see aoa SUE SE Senko Brapenseaness “> ape ae “A. Satan Smet cletite oe Rneearbaheoar aie $. pc ae. ae we 7 oO reese ole seg ete stetatonent

cope tesa % satpttee, Re, at we Pa SCN ong SEN eerie |

BSUS va ane "es sere tye ates“aeaa$5,‘ cena * Sees te Rae + SEE SS naaisSE rieene nec ey Naot UAT ate cra ae haat aes one ERara ferPRADO NOR Oo coed ee rte “Soe aeaecea tanta

Rp ed A var 7 ‘3 LE see 2 ge pe aR = Re ee

Soe a ea SSE eratoo ee SS nee eP ER NOES . « gs Ps REAR « Cann Pra

Ne eee BEReg ea dita ly dare goo tee waoy teeheeanBeeeeREERE cts SNeR RS SETAE arses Pesite a ate weiss eerie tions Re tic aes SPE :. . : + * Baettenea RAD SERNA See EES 4 OC see eRte PRR a reall “ Piceettns: sornenats Syste mh nae ae eRisener lite Pe ene Teg, ES FAS SEIS an tomer oe gg acts : cemeie NE-ERERENSN ASS 4 ae R SSP SEES|nrg rg ag 2 ee all Be a SRB oR a 4 +e a venetat JE ake car ae BRE sae MR ora naan OS RO” wf & Process Seeiaseny tetas SREENERE:

eee ane its”Dog Bee site,aaaager anor tan Ge Re 5* 2,Re Ronee Linea eo slept ee Seep nO cs SOLS B athe SOR SICESES ESS, arteielelesree ne aN Sones xenBishi Sa”aR eeSen COP areea Ata y= S. Sit Nyheter | hatieelet at iseonee SET ROE. tes Ge See 2SNtes eke iPERSONS an seeapne ceoie get nan od ¢.!eat - oe eae PEs wy 5 eres * ?. ?, a eae SeERIS te! POREe PENG RRC Oe Cee a eee ee eer “a 2we aca”. aetn REM SSSR ee Sy ot pecan, ee | Soe oan EN EY e ete eg Be CRE Spent GOES STIO reeaehatred aeaise ye SRO +. 2agleam se SURE SURES sunranras ne at nT rane Sipe” ee OSes Hye. & Shc: aR PA Seri eseae phesi seo Looe. Sg oe ER Sa.ea*ee I, See”

cemsieRinee sestars SOLES SU sth Bee Neo ner rite CORR” SARS ro aiatstat igre Fe a eases cinch Te: agate Besnestics Duensing Eternia RE™ Ra Soencatce 23 aoe mo Bed re cethceies angen SUnpeecne oie |some ates emia nem: 5ETON ee A Ss LOE ECA Sea RRC PERSathe Whee read vitae Nessa ana er 2 REISS Sao Gee renee SEE ope SERRE cea aie meanest +ie“bier, - ,SN cessaE BEDSITS

ESSE San ReSe ISPS - itofoe» oe Wage ro dace Sen erenceRR ec EES RESE 2 cae aecaien RNee 2,owe. SALStee. rere>aa3 .pone 2 eee SEER

Sian Dene Satie Sates MM es ee eee hoe” Hi “SF een s a Sree RN eR

pease ied tet Tablas elegy < aes See xPERMA POP a et SOEISE 7 4 A Ate 5sy Earabes caneEe eatsnae NEL WSEAS hacen +odges nS BOER RRR BOREAS he eee eeDh . Cease Be ee Ae A Bathe cele Tein acetate ge SEthtes

SEES WISeig , iestetCee tants 0 ONE Re Shenae RS”oer Sea ance Hepes oe ase ersten itienn sete stestene ee eicheneR See aesese ane Renne

cnet atte yee ECan saleted ae SO iehectic ees eae OE? detare a erenceee KO crehoe eon ratte SITE ete oat tate DeA telat Se Rh ee a heRSE, geeea Re “eras!Bra

SNSISE a Sena R RSE ES Tee Re" Sno etieieegeeincagigienan wage = Sete . ERE Se DY SERIES eines Se sneeie SR 4” Sion as Ramone = S- “rueh le . SS Fee OOSENR RN Tate te Seng hoeinetns Br ey HER ees & ic deh, omen: gM SOE Rieeieticonerssr ashe at

SSEnSSstonne Seger or sites fee ceecee 2" BS 5,SER SOR Band ESR Ene SESS ee “SF ee SERS Re iene bebncepe aie Inge ones greece 7 Shae ocala Sates Peea Ce tn Pe rte 2 ceeRe nS ER ne aSS «oess a eee eee SIMA

een SUM aller % ares Seee easDa z- BESS 1 Rea- coda naNnEBe Sa SS Suita het.heataet cee MMM cdr Beemss ORR ae eeRS eanmectc SRRR = PRTSOLER eS*sey Sree ea can ae eae nas eets RRR EROS: RecSanaoe Ne oaesTRE Se FEROS SOM ee siete: Ae RaeSee Shoe SURAT SEES ERG ER aa ei ciseauenttt vane, See LAER + 7 OE RS i Re Poe eee SEAS gt SISmerccceteataseateinat SOR ONS ity cee vn aea read Et sais » *< nearest "A Beacaeertct nso eee SES SIEIEE ar ei atest Cee sane akan a a cent yn ote abt Ta tata ress tetatyceee RES gees Sneheieee tne cae _ Bee: Baan BSAREBT Oe OP eaa SEES neh giuaigShah tee ts Mataintgetienennd eaemeen SRN. aoeeae | “Rear ents SREB enor ees SRR Be gee teesao SS ” SEES bg okEISeee: oir niet SES eaPRE Riri ea StS at RE Ncacel areca 2mes RSET SAPS NRE. An tine +0 res CRIES hci SoeeeBe iertatege Bee: ogeeh sree eisai anmiamentees

SEE ce Nts Sr RNS Snes S$ . remain x sasagate & “0 rd SESE acne eens PSR ShRobi aeceeiscieensnoca aa Beenters caso esOCS. esSeSe TEESE Coa Stensaa tats ” Ree oe ee RC NAD RARER, SRS esetSTR Sete / DUES Se Peseta EeESCA eePtarsceaas Seca osemer SOREL Re reg ene Uaioe SIDES Notices REN Ase BY PRC eee Fa ean ea Pee ea” ue SEa aoeRR Sime nf Eteee nace a eanaaeretatethints SUIS St ete ENSSERSNES x} fated Sera Coig: s Sa Meee Selene wanes Ree Se eehte: “aeons Na neat aeSEES Be RO. * yo, ees es HSaanhhc hg Sea nsees, COREE, ake eS Be peES Bei ERLE ICES ES IRR SEOesaRC Aeon eer nd "ae Oo. oe a aSL ee

RRS goeroSgicrete Soe fetes Sharan SEAM Snag. Rapsuanerimene neonSor arr eae i RE Rete eeeCIR aeeeBe*pang Deena oa hate prises Ma anean aah, Seas Sas ae “ = oor "SS SESE Snes Rote Seah aa ane a Snot petecea teeth otetatateetal ees a = x. patie 4 SEES RRS aS Ee SES Reenema ne ee faeces SeaSE > -thRakion eam Sesiterc reeRees SeCoren ios “sees nae terrors Setarer See RR i eeeSaCee a Cn: Dene One PRR SESS eS ee Ramee. Meee aisle, Besa ae Petoos. a seisnretG csisieaiceet te SRA SOE ans

tee? ESE etree ee pai ap Sa sole tianeealataatiegt hte aha aePe aSSse + ieSean Stn Seeman SaSOE ns BABE SES SRR SST ses eat rete rata ten Plena elarinatarian tite OP Cen eo vanessa nt said Tecate: os, < iaPetateretpriss NOTRE! eee riperie gee

TRIS eng es SoS n rane Sir"ots aoe pectensscaasaa aaBea en S gintnoaeatnage agony Ses SE oS 2a emeien geet eaage + negra ant SEE Senate ane Se ec see seg ae ==BB oe4Soh eae abaeSadan tenses meine cinerea Se Se etnias a oie 1Sea CSEBEMIS Er a SensSe graSTs geeieas

Ea S38 Boon aeStat ’ ‘oneness erage 3 BEDE RR REC Cerin acegueergtouns Sete Se eee ne Rae” SSG aSESE Se

Sess: acon a ates ensRee norenc ae Ieee se eS oR esa paisa eanRAST otnaaanre SERSRBEE Sc IS aR enerBas: tt a Be nopr neat SEReaR Rh Bont epee: SRR Setarts Oa “REESE ESTES Se Senet: Seaeeenee ie Soe oneROSE Ramer cote eaeREADE ts RS MeeRRC IaheeROE nee DetGnnes! Metta toteSESS See eee ae se Ee acne asirene Eat. Beene, nea Ree ieee “alee. NR REE

EERE Sao oess Eee Be poate 2s PES ee er Soe

aN eSteethaeoesPERRET Reite: ee RE eeRRSoe BOC “higetageattad arta Ue Rea | Teta tere tate ye asthe tata ceat See Sc meetseke ot a ey oe ORCS «St ounetes ES ard seecargetatetatotelat tetatate TOE einer ein ee ae 4 pegs: ae ae RE a oe” Sate Ssa”, SEARS coe Sinn eaten lite none eee Eerie iad BEES See Ke. 2 Wepotaaionats sethan tetSES aerate aera ETD SEesoe “ Be - Sa neaECS of “ESR. Se See IS 3 wee eer hE CeIn Sec ey

EER f aES Ssesseobente eeesSeaes eeSER re, :ER Poe ee et Rena > 32 See take Se ReSabee SiSad SS Se

abies mmnene can Be S.-i BS eyceecaibena ae SSR poser eae ecg se ctea iat aetier i a* Gebeioe eee t 2atBaek ae Sait g agi tence ae seacae eit ceaiat aceiceeee ae se ce ane te4 ate ae ses PORE eaSean SAREE er Boss cure SRC ae eS eC * 2s ies “e, a so eee Sete Prieta p iteegentete et erate oe Tissearaaetricemmtrs

Race enn eat aaaaaaaeeene ws *. an. gl *eta t “ iae onsa ofan bal ot eines sues bapagsk Soe anne tne ene eRe Sf Be See mt. See 2Sesiuesniinnneenr age be eS Se nine Sa

ee Se eranwomen acts # ey es vee £ RE Rr lS BEOeSE FERC saete ai See “usneuen RES seeee, Bee . * Se>ae eae

Solely taletatatetas itatetetetetenat Se narenehe eo oe ° ee - So a hae ans atatgtatanal rccretetegerenieetrsaetagessy Mies needa mares :. an ss aBt eeSR eneBee » 2. as oeSUR eS Eee acrate ees Beisecencaenonesg PAsoe eS apa a ee eee ater fp ot ee ae PER aoece eam SOR ERR ne Fem: *a -or. oFteaeaSeer wtRegt i SaaS Siete seismic tHe, : 1 ne aes 4 ated ee ere BRR SESE i ° Sa aye, SR. ae os AERO LON phe EERE ieee S| eee ee? *s e Be Ra * See cee Se ce nen ieteatecca . os See RS pe eS St ioe Sea Five, 17 Rees iireaemneN a Tahaan Data “ OR aeLee ant “so os eat onSete |tt SESEaoc ESS "50 OREN, cee 8 ReSeats eee I teAON oltate Barcateen een Bernas * Bh seem: se we FDx.? Under his influence the emperor dismissed and exiled

Timasius and Abundantius, the last Roman magistri militum from the previous reign surviving in the East. Eutropius probably replaced one of them with the Goth Gainas, whose emergence thus hints at collusion between the eunuch and Stilicho in the death of Rufinus.» But the western generalissimo soon found Eutropius no less determined than his predecessor to remain independent. When Stilicho appeared a second time in the Balkans to defend the Empire against Alaric (early 397), the eastern government not only ordered him to withdraw but declared him a public enemy. In the summer of 398 Eutropius himself took the field in the Empire’s defense and managed

a significant victory in Armenia over Huns and other marauders. When he returned, Constantinople saluted him with a victory celebration. Statues in his image went up before the senate house, along the thoroughfares, and throughout the East,*4 and Arcadius decorated 51. In general, Eunap. frgg. 69, 74 (FHG, IV, 44, 46-47); Zos. 5. 8. 1, 11. 1, 14. 1; Pall. Dia/. 5 (pp. 29-30 Coleman-Norton); Claud. I” Exér. 1. 170-81, 2. 58-83, 549-50. In 399 Arcadius wept when the soldiers attempted to seize Eutropius: Joh. Chrys. De capt. Eutr. 1 (PG, Lil, 397). 52. For detailed discussion (with sources) see PLRE, II, 440-41, ‘‘Eutroptus 1,’ and esp. Mazzarino, Sti/icone, pp.. 196-217, and Demougeot, Division, pp. 158-94, 220-32; also Alan Cameron, Claudian, pp. 124-49, on the poem Iz Eutropium. 53. Supra, n. 48. Demandt, RE, suppl. XII (1970), 732-34, ‘‘Magister Militum,’’ and PLRE, I, 379, ‘‘Gainas,’’ make Gainas only comes ret mulitaris from

385 to 399. I take Zos. 5. 13. 1, ote Tis npenovons oTpatny tis GEiovmEvos, to mean that Gainas broke with Eutropius in 399 because he did not enjoy the prerogatives and influence on policy that a magister militum expected. 54. Claud. In Eutr. 1. 254-58, 2. 70-83; CTA 9. 40. 14; on statuary and the senate house supra, p. 41 and infra, p. 97.

62. + Theodostan Empresses

him with the highest honors—the distinction patriczus®> and the consulship for 399.

Then the troubles mounted. The western government naturally would not accept the prodigy of a eunuch consul —'‘omnta cesserunt eunucho consule monstra’’>°—but the resistance of great men in the East was of more consequence. Eutropius had taken a hard line in enforcing the court’s authority over them, while his efforts to finance strong government through confiscations and ‘‘sale of offices’’>” confirmed the impression of eunuch rapacity. Thus ‘‘the senatorial class unanimously loathed this wretched state of affairs.’’58 Nature

conspired also, it appears, to protect 399 from the disgrace of an eponymous eunuch. As the consulship approached, an earthquake struck Constantinople causing flooding and fires, rumors of plague, showers of stones and blood, and heavenly conflagrations which drove

the people from the city in another furor of penitence.°° This must have unnerved Arcadius and especially Eudoxia, who was late in her second pregnancy and faced childbirth under such ominous circumstances. Then in the spring of the fateful year more Gothic foederat revolted in Phrygia, and when Gainas was ordered out to pacify them he supported the demand of their chief Tribigild that Eutroptus be removed. Even so, the decisive stroke came from the empress. In July, 399, Eudoxia approached Arcadius with her daughers Flaccilla and Pulcheria, now six months old, in her arms. The eunuch had threatened to send her away, she claimed, ‘‘lamenting like a woman and holding her babies out to her husband.’’ Arcadius dismissed Eutropius

at once. ‘‘Compassion entered him for his children, as they cried 55. The distinction evoked kinship and paternalism toward the emperor and court, as Claudian ironically suggests, In Eutr. 2. 68-69: ‘‘. . . genitorque vocatur/ principis et famulum dignatur regina patrem.’’ Cf. Jones, Later Roman Empire, \, 106, III, 155 n. 28 (omitting Eutropius); and T.D. Barnes, ‘'Paérictt under Valentinian Ill,’’ Phoenix 29 (1975), 169 (including him among only six patrici ‘‘indubttably attested before 400’’). 56. Claud. In Euzr. 1. 8. 57. On ‘‘venal suffragium'’ see infra, p. 100 with n. 97. 58. Zos. 5. 13. 1, also Joh. Ant. frg. 189 (FHG, IV, 610), both reflecting Eunapius.

59. Claud. Im Eur. 1. 1-7, 2. 24-46, Philostorg. 11. 7 linked by Seeck,

Geschichte, V, 305-6, 563 ad 305. 17, with Marcell. com. a. 396. 3 (MGH: AA, XI, 64), Chron. gall. a. 452 33 (tbid., IX, 650), and Aug. De excidio urbis Romae sermo

7-8 (ed. O'Reilly). Cf. J. Hubaux, ‘‘La crise de la trois cent soixante cinquiéme année,’ Antiguité classique 17 (1948), 343-54.

Aelia Eudoxia Augusta » 63

loudly with concern for their mother.’’®° The moral requirements of kedeia and hopes for the dynasty’s future weighed far more heavily than the services of a talented official, and Eudoxia understood how

to impress the importance of these matters upon her husband, as in the Porphyry episode. Asylum in the church of John Chrysostom rescued Eutropius from the aroused people and troops, but he was later recalled from exile on Cyprus, tried on a specious charge, and beheaded. In De providentia or the Egyptian Tale, written in 400, about a year after the fall of Eutropius, Synesius of Cyrene described allegorically the conflict that raged in the intervening period between virtue and evil, embodied in Osiris and Typho, two brothers who competed for rule of Thebes and the Egyptians. Properly interpreted, Egypt was the eastern Roman Empire, and the ‘‘brothers’’ must have

been Aurelian and Eutychian.®! Already powerful in the previous reign, the latter had advanced to the praetorian prefecture of the East under Eutropius, but lost that office with the eunuch’s fall. City prefect of Constantinople, 393-94, Aurelian’s next political exploits were acquisition of the prized eastern prefecture in succession to Eutychian (summer of 399) and presidency of the tribunal that con-

demned Eutropius.4 In the autumn (September or so) Arcadius designated him consul for 400. 60. Philostorg. 11. 6, also Soc. 6. 2. 7 reporting that Arcadius condemned Eutropius 614 tiva mtalopata and Soz. 8. 7. 3 that he fell to an aulic conspiracy, ¢ cic tiv Baothéws yapetiv Sppicac éxiPovAevdeic; Demougeot, Division, p. 229. 61. O. Seeck, ‘‘Studien zu Synesius,’’ PAi/o/ogus 52 (1894), 450-54, identifies Typho with Caesarius, PPO Or. 395-97, 400-403 (PLRE, 1, 171, “FI. Caesarius 6’’), and most scholars have followed him in reconstructing the Gothic crisis of 399400, e.g., Mazzarino, Sti/icone, pp. 206-26, and Demougeot, Division, pp. 236-66 (the fullest discussion, with sources). A.H.M. Jones, ‘‘Collegiate Prefectures,’’ JRS 54 (1964), 78-89, not only demolishes the theory of collegiate prefectures, which ‘reached their zenith under Seeck,’’ but demonstrates (pp. 79-81) that the succession of prefects known from dated laws.in the codes can be fitted most readily into the De providentia if Typho is equated with Eutychian, FeO Or. 397-99, 399-400, 404-5 (PERE, I, 319-21, ‘‘Flavius Eutychianus 5’’). My reconstruction rests on Jones and his chronology. 62. PLRE, 1, 319-21, for Eutychian’s career, including the identification with Typho (accepted also by Dagron, Naéssance, p. 204 n. 4). His consanguinity with Aurelian / Osiris, known only from the De providentia, may well have been part of the allegory. The imperatives of edeia would have inhibited such a tangle between blood brothets. PLRE, 1, 1146, stemma 28 requires modification. 63. PLRE, I, 128-29, ‘‘Aurelianus 3,’’ for his career. 64. Philostorg. 11. 6.

64 » Theodosian Empresses

Thus far Synesius’ conflict between virtue and evil looks suspiciously like normal maneuvering for advancement among ambitious men. Aurelian temporarily had the upper hand, but his rival could muster formidable allies. No less disenchanted with the new govern-

ment than with its predecessor, Gainas threw in with Tribigild’s revolt and matched toward Constantinople. When he reached Chalcedon (about November) Eutychian slipped across the Propontis to join him.® Together they required Arcadius to parley in the church of St. Euphemia near Chalcedon and to cooperate with them in overthrowing Aurelian. The prefect himself was handed over, threatened with execution, then exiled, as were his associates Count John and Saturninus.®* Once again praetorian prefect of the East, Eutychian established a military regime backed by Gaiinas, who now entered Constantinople with his largely Gothic army. Aurelian also had formidable backing. His presidency of the Eutropius tribunal and succession to the prefecture already hint at collusion with the empress, but the suspicions are more solidly founded. Among those with a hold over Eudoxia were two distinguished matrons

of Constantinople, Marsa, the widow of Promotus, who had presum-

ably mothered the empress, and her friend Castricia, the wife of Saturninus.§7 The enigmatic Count John frequented the palace with such incautious intimacy that gossip made him the father of Eudoxia’s child.6* Acquainted with his opposition, Eutychian had known where

to strike. With Count John, Saturninus, and Aurelian under their 65. Syn. De prov. 1. 15 (p. 101 Terzaghi). 66. Zos. 5. 18. 6-8 (Eunapius); Soc. 6. 6. 8-12; Soz. 8. 4. 4-5; Joh. Chrys. Hom cum Sat. et Aur. acti ess. in exil,, title, PG, LI], 413. Only Zosimus mentions Count John, perhaps because it was his influence with the empress (é/ra) that prompted Eutychian and Gainas to demand his extradition. The fact offered an embarrassing glimpse into contemporary arcana imperit which Chrysostom and the ecclesiastical historians would have suppressed (Demougeot, Diviston, p. 251 n. 86).

67. Pall. Dia/. 4 (p. 25 Coleman-Norton), also 8 (p. 45), for Chrysostom’s censure of Eugraphia and other women of the group who did not conduct themselves as proper widows but primped excessively and affected elaborate hairdos. This censure was part of a sermon Chrysostom delivered against Eudoxia’s circle in 403: tn/fra,

p. 73 with n. 102. .

68. Zos. 5. 18. 8. On the dangers of such intimacy and the inevitable rumors cf. the Honoria episode of 434 and the fate of Paulinus in 443/44 (fra, pp. 193-94). The synod of The Oak in 403 (t2/ra, p. 74) accused John Chrysostom of denouncing John during the revolt of the soldiers, i.e., to Gainas in 399-400: Phot. Bz6/, cod. 59 (I, 53 Henry). He retained his influence even after Eudoxia’s death, if he was the man ‘‘to whom the emperor's eats are open, who moreover can employ the [emperor’s] will however he wishes’’ mentioned Syn. Ef. 110 (dated summer, 405: Seeck, ‘Studien,’’ pp. 473, 483). Cf. PLRE, II, 593-94, ‘‘loannes 1.”’

Aeha Eudoxia Augusta « 65

control and the threat of death, Eutychian and Gainas would not expect Eudoxia to exert her power against them.

On January 9, 400, a month or two after Gainas had seized control of Constantinople, Eudoxia received the rank Augusta.® The sources give no details, but her elevation, like that of Flaccilla, was

probably conducted in a court setting, with the Augustus himself presenting the paludamentum of purple and the imperial diadem. Like Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom considered these to be the primary insignia of an Augusta, declaring (as was observed earlier) that Eudoxia cast them off to display her humility when she followed the bones of saints. From her elevation in 400 until her death in 404,

again as in the case of Flaccilla, Constantinople and other eastern mints struck coins of Eudoxta in gold, silver, and bronze.?° Figure 7 presents a beautiful specimen, a solidus from Constantinople now in the collection of Dumbarton Oaks. Obverse and reverse repeat the

main type of Flaccilla (fig. 6), including on the obverse the same costume of an Augusta—here with a pearl-bordered diadem—and the characteristic legend AELIA EVDO—XIA AVG(VSTA). Since the

nomen Aelia probably did not come to Eudoxia from a family connection with Flaccilla or from aristocratic Spanish extraction, it must have been regarded by contemporaries as a dynastic title of female distinction. Ceremonial and costume, coin legends and iconography

thus suggest continuity with Theodosian precedent, and that the eastern court purposely evoked an established image of female rule when it advertised the elevation of Eudoxia.

There were also important elements of innovation. On the obverses of Eudoxia’s coins, a disembodied hand reaches down from above to crown her head with a wreath. This hand is readily identt-

fiable as the dextera Det, the right hand of God known in Jewish iconography as early as the third century and in the fourth and early fifth from a few fepresentations in Christian art.7! The motif also 69. Chron. pasch. a. 400 (p. 567 Bonn): 4 éxtgaveotatn Evdogtia éxnpdn Abdyovota.

70. I.]. Tolstot, Monnaies Byzantines, | (St. Petersburg, 1912), pp. 46-51, nos. 136-40, 142-53 (nos. 135 and 141 belong to Licinia Eudoxia, infra, pp. 129, 183); J.P.C. Kent and R.A.G. Carson, Late Roman Bronze Coinage (London, 1960), nos. 2217-20, 2442-45, 2586-89, 2797-2800, 2919. 71. A. Alféldi, ‘‘Insignien,’’ pp. 55~56 (= Repriasentation, pp. 173-74), suggests a pagan origin for the iconography; J.D. MaclIsaac, ‘‘‘The Hand of God,’” Traditio 31 (1975), 322-28, stresses Jewish and Christian parallels. The evidence is too slight to permit a decision.

66 » Theodostan Empresses

belonged to the repertoire of coin designers as early as 333. A wellknown medallion of Constantius II shows, on its reverse, his father Constantine crowned by a hand which emerges from a cloud above. 72

In the fourth century, however, the dextera Dei was conspicuously infrequent in numismatic:art. Its blatant monotheism offended con-

servative opinion, no doubt, but it also detracted from the main official line—that an Augustus received his power directly from the troops. For this reason imperial image-makers had found it appro-

priate for the earliest obverses of Ascadius, struck following his elevation at the unwarlike age of seven, when it must have seemed wise to emphasize the alternative theory that his Jast/eia was of divine origin,?3 and thus the image-makers adopted it for Eudoxia’s obverses as well. A woman's Jasi/eia could have nothing to do with the troops and might best receive sanction and permanence from the ideology of divine kingship. Comparison with the earliest Arcadius obverses also suggests that the dextera Det on Eudoxia’s coins should be interpreted specifically as commentary on her elevation. Arcadius conferred the paludamentum and diadem, but those who handled Eudoxia’s coins were to recognize her coronation as an act of transcendence. Eudoxia, therefore, was ¢ Deo coronata.™ The coins prove that on this occasion ideologues of the eastern court conceived the sacral Dasi/eia of empresses.

A few years later the western court, still under the influence of Stilicho and still at odds with the East, directed a peevish letter to Arcadius.?> In it Honorius scolded his brother for another ‘‘tnnovation,’’ the transmission of Eudoxia’s official images (/aureatae) throughout the provinces, where, like those of an Augustus, they were to be received joyously by the people in response to her elevation

and as a celebration of her new basileig.76 With verbosity typical of the court style, Honorius spoke of ‘‘voices raised in objection around the world’’ and admonished his brother to stop the practice, ‘‘allowing zealous gossip to die away and giving the public tongue 72. F. Gnecchi, I medagliont romani, I (Milan, 1912), pl. 12; J.M.C. Toynbee, Roman Medallions, Ametican Numismatic Society: Numismatic Studies no. 5 (New York, 1944), p. 198. 73. RIC, IX, 153. 33, 183. 45a—b, 195. 12, 197. 22, 226. 53a—b, 233. 80, 257.

26, 260. 41, 281. 41b, 291. 60, 300. 7, 302. 16; supra, p. 29, n. 85. 74. Ensslin, Gottkatser, p. 55, comments on the Constantius medallion: ‘‘Das ist der Sinnfallige Ausdruck dafiit, dass die Kaisergewalt von Gott verlichen und der Kaiser @ deo coronatus ist... .”’

75. Coll, Avell. 38. 1 (CSEL, XXXV: 1, 85); Kruse, Geltung des Kaiserbildes, , 31-32.

Pp 76. Kruse, Geltung des Kaiserbildes, pp. 23-50.

Aelia Eudoxia Augusta « 67

nothing to complain of in the customs of our time.’’ Apparently laureatae of Eudoxia had reached Italy and the western court, where this manifestation of her power did not sit well with the ruling circles. The letter reveals also that assimilation of an Augusta with her male counterparts had advanced in the East, where court ideologues not only conceived the sacral Sast/eia of empresses but meant that it be taken seriously.

The coronation of Eudoxia on January 9, 400, and associated ideological innovations may strike modern observers as puzzling. At the time she had produced two daughters and carried a third child of unknown sex, but unlike Flaccilla’s at the time of her coronation, Eudoxia’s childbearing had not yet provided an heir, much less one raised to imperial distinction. Previous scholarship has linked Eudoxia’s coronation with Aurelian and his associates, but chronology forbids a direct connection.”” Her friends were in exile, while Gainas occupied

Constantinople and Eutychian headed a government whose views on female Jasifeia, if anything, agreed with those of the western court. Initiative for the coronation may therefore have come from Eudoxia herself and her familiar imperiousness. She may have arranged her own promotion in order that she might resist more effectively the revolt of Gainas and Eutychian.

A glance at the revolt’s denouement and the reaction to it reinforces this supposition. Gainas held the dynastic city with his mainly Gothic army for more than six months, until a popular uprising

put an end to his occupation. The Goths’ Arian heresy and their habitual looting irritated the people of Constantinople and eventually

induced them to arm themselves. On the night of June 11, 400, Gainas left the city, ostensibly to escape the tension and calm his nerves. His men naturally assumed that he was abandoning them, and as they crowded through the gates in pursuit, the aroused popu-

lation slaughtered many. After another defeat at the Hellespont, Gainas escaped across the Danube, where a Hun chief named Uldin struck off his head.78 In his allegorical De providentia, Synesius of Cyrene interpreted these dramatic events as that final destruction of evil which enabled

Osiris/ Aurelian to return and institute praiseworthy reforms. De77. Jones’ chronology (supra, n. 61) refutes, e.g., Seeck, Geschichte, V, 317-18; Mazzarino, S#/tcone, p. 216; Demougeot, Division, p. 245.

78. See Demougeot, Division, pp. 252-62, for a detailed account (with sources).

68 » Theodostan Empresses

pendence on barbarians ended, Synesius maintained, and Aurelian began recruiting Roman troops to replace them.’? Convinced by Synesius, and reading into his allegory more recent modes of political action, scholars have interpreted Aurelian’s return as the triumph of a

nationalist, anti-barbarian ‘‘party’’ whose adherents.may be easily recognized among the correspondents of Synesius.®° But it is doubtful whether such a coalition existed, or that the word ‘“‘party’’ should be applied to fashionable literary and philosophical interchange among

like-minded men. In Constantinople, politics centered on the court. As the conflict between Aurelian and his rival made abundantly clear, political ends could be achieved only by controlling the emperor. No convincing evidence exists that the sentiments of Synesius motivated either Arcadius or Eudoxia (or, for that matter, Aurelian and his friends). Following Theodosian precedent, the eastern court relied in the crisis on trustworthy soldiers of whatever nationality.®! For the emperor and his consort the real issue was dynastic security and independence. Gainas and Eutychian had humiliated Arcadius, and they had offended Eudoxtia gravely when they forced the emperor

to hand over her friends. For more than six months the revolt of Gainas inhibited the two rulers, until it succumbed to a popular uprising. Perhaps that uprising was connected not only with popular irritation but also with the desperate situation of the eastern coutt.: 79. Syn. De prov. 1. 15 (p. 98 Tetzaghi). O. Seeck, RE, H (1896), 1151, ‘‘ Arkadios 2,’’ observed an absence of German names among officers attested later in

the reign of Arcadius. This may indicate an antibarbarian reaction after the Gainas tebellion, as might well be expected, but proves nothing regarding Aurelian’s motives in 399. 80. C. Zakrzewski, Le parti théodosien et son antithése, Eus supplementa vol. XVIII (Lvov, 1931), pp. 56-131, presents an extravagant version, but the view has long been communis opinio (e.g., Seeck, Stein, Mazzarino, Demougeot). For Aurelian’s supposed ‘‘partisans’’ see esp. C. Lacombrade, Sywéstos de Cyréne, helléne et chrétien (Paris, 1951), pp. 84-130; and Demougeot, Division, p. 237. Saturninus, necessarily a major antibarbarian ‘‘partisan,’’ had earlier been an architect of the Theodosian Gothic settlement in 382, whence the barbarian ‘‘problem’’ took its roots (Them. Or. 16. 208b-209d, 210d), while both Eutychian and Caesarius held the praetorian prefecture during the period 400-405, when the supposed ‘‘antibarbarian party’’ was in power (PLRE, I, 171, 320). Neither, therefore, would be a good candidate for chief of an opposing ‘‘party’’ if the term is to have any sense at all. Dagron, Natssance, pp. 204-6, expresses justified suspicions, but his theory of 4 ‘‘eparti» sénatorial’’ is likewise misleading. As Dagron himself admits, ‘‘le débat devise aussi bien le sénat lui-méme.’’ 81. Thus Fravitta mzagister militum defeated Gainas on the Hellespont in late 400 and was rewatded with the consulship for 401: PZLRE, 1, 372-73, ‘‘Flavius Fravitta.’’

Aelia Eudoma Augusta + 69

The coronation of Eudoxia, January 9, 400, may best be interpreted as the court’s response to the Gothic occupation of Constantinople. As an Augusta, Eudoxia would bring new resources to the struggle from the domestic side of the Jasi/eia, and she could therefore

rouse the people of Constantinople more effectively against her enemies. To buttress Eudoxia’s authority, imperial mints evoked a transcendent source. When the victory had been won, official propaganda did not attribute it to the popular disturbances that had plagued Gainas or to a ‘‘party’’ among the great men, but to the same dextera

Dei that crowns Eudoxia on her coins, this time, however, seen emerging from a cloud to ‘‘drive off the barbarians,’’ who ‘‘fled before God.’’ This was the occasion on which a city prefect set up images of imperial victory in the hippodrome of Constantinople, with innovative iconography that confirms a link between Eudoxia’s coronation and the crisis of 399/400. That coronation was clearly a political

event of first magnitude. Like Eutropius before them, Gainas and Eutychian failed partly because they collided with Eudoxia. Finally, Eudoxta’s ‘‘imperiousness’’ accounts for her conflict with the bishop John Chrysostom, a collision of such proportions that it shattered for a time the crucial bond between the people of Constantinople and the Theodosian house. A priest of Antioch, John had been selected for the episcopacy ‘‘by the unanimous vote of all, the

clergy and the people,’’ but also, apparently, because the court expected his ‘‘learning and eloquence’ to deepen popular attachment to the dynastic faith.82 Thus the emperor dispatched Eutropius to fetch him from Antioch, and when Chrysostom arrived in Constan-

tinople, escorted by a contingent of the palace guard, a synod of eastern bishops assembled there by imperial command to carry out the enthronement.®3

The choice was not unsuccessful. When Eudoxia followed the relics of saints, Chrysostom drew out forcefully the image of her imperial virtues expected by the court. But the new bishop directed most of his energies to the advancement of his see.84 He intervened in the affairs of other bishops, for example, in line with the conciliar decision of 381 that ‘‘New Rome’”’ possessed special authority among 82. Soc. 6. 2. 2-3. 83. Pall. Dia/. 5 (p. 30 Coleman-Norton); Soc. 6. 2. 4; Dagron, Natssance, pp. 463-65. 10-16 i Dagron, Naissance, pp. 465-69; more generally, Baur, Chrysostomus, Il,

70 + Theodostan Empresses

the churches. He enforced strict discipline over his local clergy as well. He evangelized the Goths of Constantinople and the vicinity, most of

them from among the emperor’s troops, and attracted some into his own orthodox communion. He labored also to counteract the threat of nascent monasticism. Tainted in the vicinity of Constantinople by Macedonian (semi-Arian) origins, the ascetic movement had recently become an urban phenomenon and a threat to ecclesiastical order.

When monks abandoned isolation in the countryside for service among the sick and homeless of Constantinople, they acquired enough

public sympathy to make their archimandrite Isaac a contender for spiritual leadership. Chrysostom attempted to depose Isaac,®> but his

response included devoting the growing financial resources of the episcopacy to his own charitable institutions of less revolutionary character. The court supported these efforts, by and large,®’ but before long even the great city of Constantine and Theodosius would not have the space for both John Chrysostom and Eudoxia’s Jasileia. When Chrysostom expressed himself on the subject of women he adopted conventional sarcasm colored by the usual suspicions of a Christian ascetic. For him, females bore the mark of Eve. By nature

vain, disobedient, and malicious, they were useful for procreation and household management but positively dangerous for anyone wishing to advance morally. Deprived by God of the right to spiritual leadership, they would nonetheless insinuate themselves when possible into positions of authority.%°

Eudoxia fitted this image nicely. In 401 Chrysostom expelled from Constantinople a prominent ecclesiastic named Severian. The man was a troublemaker. On vacation from his responsibilities as bishop of Gabala in Syria, he had come to Constantinople to seek his fortune (in the crassest sense, the source claims), and in a short time had won a following in the city and the court and a dangerous hold 85. G. Dagron, ‘‘Les moines et la ville: le monachisme 4 Constantinople jusqu’au concile de Chalcédoine (451),’’ Travaux et mémotres 4 (1970), 262-65. 86. Pall. Dia/. 5 (p. 32 Coleman-Norton); D.J. Constantelos, Byzantine Philanthropy and Social Welfare (New Brunswick, N.J., 1968), pp. 155-56.

87. According to Thdt. HE 5. 31. 3, Chrysostom wrote to a bishop near Antioch offering to secure legislation against the heresy of Marcion, G70 t@v BaotAtKOV vopov éxixouplav dopéyov. This implies the cooperation of the court. In 404

some of his Gothic following occupied a convent év totc IIp@pdtov: Ep. 207 (PG, LII, 726). Promotus’ family probably offered the space before ca. 403, when the court and with it his widow Matsa (supra, p. 64) began tangling with Chrysostom. Eudoxia may well have arranged or approved the foundation, a part of Chrysostom’s evangelizing efforts. 88. Joh. Chrys. De virg. 46-47 (ed. Musurillo), Cozzm. in Isatam 3. 8 (PG, LVI, 50-51), De sacerd, 3. 9 (ed. Nairn).

‘Aeha Eudomta Augusta + 71

over Eudoxia. Thus his expulsion supported discipline and the bishop’s authority. When the empress heard of it, however, she ordered that Severian return immediately and employed a familiar technique to compel Chrysostom’s acquiescence. Approaching the surprised bishop in the Apostles Church, she deposited an infant on-his knees, imploring that if he cared for the child’s well-being, he abjure further dissension with Severian. The infant, of course, was Theodosius II, born only a few months earlier, so Chrysostom could hardly refuse.®9

But the incident confirmed private suspicions and led to resentful outbursts. John Chrysostom did approve of some women, those who con-

ducted themselves with modesty in dress, habits, and speech in obedience to their priests and bishop. Among the obedient were his ‘‘battalion of widows,’’ rich and aristocratic ladies like Pentadia, Procle, and Silvine, and especially Olympias, ‘‘who refused to be

budged from his church.’’9° A descendant of Flavius Ablabius, praetotian prefect in the time of Constantine, and heiress to an immense fortune with properties in Constantinople, its suburbs, and the neighboring provinces, Olympias had seemed a proper match for Nebridius, prefect of Constantinople in 386 and brother-in-law of Flaccilla Augusta. When her husband died shortly after the marriage, she ‘‘leaped like a gazelle over the snare of a second union’’ despite

the insistence of the emperor himself, who had selected another kinsman to succeed Nebridius.%!

The designs of Theodosius reveal another side of founding a dynasty, the amassing, through &edeza, bequest, and less acceptable methods, of the property required to finance imperial magnificence. The estates of Olympias, however, escaped at least temporarily from

the Theodosian net.92 Nectarius ordained her a deaconess of the Great Church of Constantinople, a dignity which would protect her from similar secular attempts at manipulation.93 And when Chrysostom became bishop in 398 he volunteered to advise her on the proper 89. Soc. 6. 11. 1-7, 11-21.

90. Pall. Dia/. 5, 10, 16-17 (pp. 32, 60-61, 98-102, 107-10 ColemanNorton). On Olympias see also PLRE, I, 642-43, ‘‘Olympias 2,’’ and esp. Jean Chrysostome, Lettres @ Olymptas, ed. with introduction, translation, and notes by A.-M. Malingrey (Paris, 1968), including the anonymous vita, pp. 406-49. Further infra, pp. 143-44.

91. Pall. Dial. 16 (pp. 108-9 Coleman-Norton); V. Ol/ymp. 3 (ed. Malingrey); Matthews, Aristocractes, pp. 109-10.

92. The loss was considerable. See V. Olymp. 5, 7 (ed. Malingrey) with Dagton’s discussion, Natssance, pp. 503-4. 93. Soz. 8. 9. 1; on deaconesses z#fra, pp. 140, 144.

72 »« Theodostan Empresses

distribution of her assets: ‘“Thus will your generosity benefit the needy, and God will grant you the reward of your earnest and merci-

ful caring.’’% There was another side to a strong bishop as well, and Chrysostom’s efforts to finance his operations would inevitably bring difficulties with the court. When Porphyry of Gaza reached Constantinople late in 400, he and his companions naturally took their concern first to the bishop. Chrysostom could not help, however, because the empress had poi-

soned his relations with the emperor; ‘“‘for I reproached her,’’ he explained, ‘‘on account of a property which she coveted and finally seized.’’95 Late biographers of Chrysostom elaborated the story, which

recalled for them the biblical account of Naboth’s vineyard. Like Naboth, a poor widow owned a vineyard which the empress, like King Ahab, coveted for her own. Unlike Ahab’s queen Jezebel, Eudoxia did not need to resort to murder, for she had gathered grapes

in the vineyard and could therefore claim it by an imperial law.% (In reality no such law ever existed, but apoctyphal features need not

cast doubt on the story’s basic veracity.) The perils of Olympias’ properties suggest Eudoxia’s genuine motives, as Gilbert Dagron has

pointed out,’ and offer a reason why the bishop stepped forth to protest like the prophet Elijah when the court seized the ‘‘vineyards”’ of widows. Moreover, it was Chrysostom himself, not later authors, who invented the biblical parallel. He employed it on this or a later

occasion to attack the empress, with familiar verve but an amazing lack of tact. Eudoxia was Jezebel, he declared,°® the embodiment of queenly evil. One wondets whether like the prophet he predicted also that dogs would lick her blood. 94, Soz. 8. 9. 2-3. 1 detect a touch of sarcasm (fv obv épol net... ). Sozomen also tells of one such woman who escaped Chrysostom’s net. Nicarete, daughter of an aristocratic Bithynian family, refused with admirable modesty to accept the dignity of deaconess, ‘‘alchough John urged her repeatedly to head the community of virgins at his church’’ (8. 23. 4-7). 95. Marc. Diac. V. Porph. 37 (ed. Grégoire-Kugener). 96. The full version appeared earliest in the Chrysostom vztae of Theodore of Trimithus (c. 15) and Pseudo-George of Alexandria (c. 41), both about 700. See now F. Halkin, Douze récits byzantins sur saint Jean Chrysostome, Subsidia hagiographica no, 60 (Brussels, 1977). Theodore and Pseudo-George say that the property of the widow’s late husband had been confiscated. Thus the operative law may in reality have been CTA 9. 14. 3 (dated 397) prescribing confiscation for men convicted of treason and including in the property implicated the dowries of their wives. 97. Natssance, pp. 498-505. 98. Pall. Dia/. 8 (p. 51 Coleman-Norton) (¢2/fra, n. 105). As Baur observed (Chrysostomus, 11, 144), Chrysostom’s choice of Jezebel indicates a scenario like that

in Theodore and Pseudo-George.

Aelia Eudoxta Augusta « 73

When Theodosius II was baptized, on the feast of the Epiphany, January 6, 402, relations between episcopacy and Jasi/eia remained

correct enough for John Chrysostom to officiate while Severian of Gabala, Eudoxia’s favorite, took the part of godparent.9® But the next two years were to prove that Chrysostom’s resentment of an imperious female worked more strongly in the opposite direction. In 402-3 he became embroiled with Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria. The latter, an almost brutal man, had excommunicated and hounded from Egypt and Palestine the Tall Brothers, four monks of exemplary piety, for espousing the teaching of Origen (third century) that God the Father did not exist in human form.!°*° When the Tall Brothers

took refuge in Constantinople, Chrysostom received them warmly and wrote to Theophilus inviting him to explain himself and lift the

ban. This demarche proved ineffective, however, so the monks turned to Eudoxia, in the manner of Porphyry. Having access neither through Chrysostom nor through the palace eunuchs, they accosted

her as she progressed through the city in her imperial wagon. She greeted them approvingly, and with a prayer for ‘‘the emperor and herself, for their children and the Empire’’ promised a synod at which Theophilus would answer for his action. !0 Instructed by his wife, Arcadius did order Theophilus to appear at a synod. But by the time it took place the Tall Brothers had been

forgotten and Chrysostom was the accused. In the interim he had pronounced a sermon against females in general which the multitudes interpreted (and he probably intended) as a veiled attack on the empress.1°2 Reports quickly reached Eudoxia, exaggerated, perhaps, by Chrysostom’s enemies. She complained to the emperor, insisting that insults against herself struck her consort as well.1°3 It was arranged 99. Gennad. De vir. illus. 21 (ed. Herding); Wenger, ‘‘Notes inédites,”’ p. 54. 100. On Theophilus, the Tall Brothers, and the Origenist controversy see most recently E.D. Hunt, ‘‘Palladius of Helenopolis,’’ JTAS n.s. 24 (1973), 456-80; and J.N.D. Kelly, Jerome, His Life, Writings, and Controversies (New York-London, 1975), pp. 243-46, 259-63.

101. Soz. 8. 13. 5. Pall. Dial. 8 (p. 43 Coleman-Norton) reports another (later?) encounter in the szartyrium of St. John, at which the Tall Brothers handed Eudoxia a formal petition (Séno1Gc). 102. Soc. 6. 15. 1-3, Soz. 8. 16. 1-2; cf. Pall. Dia/. 8 (p. 45 Coleman-Norton)

(supra, n. 67) and Zos. 5. 23. 2 for additional reflections of this sermon which, to judge from Palladius, was directed mainly against Eudoxia’s group of friends. Socrates says that Chrysostom lost his temper because Eudoxia had turned the famous heresy-

hunter Epiphanius of Salamis against him. Sozomen suspects that he did it from personal inclination. 103. Soc. 6. 15. 4: adtob bPprv elvat Aéyovuoa thv éavtijc.

74+ Theodostan Empresses

that not Theophilus but Chrysostom would answer to the synod, and when it convened, in the autumn of 403 at a palace called The Oak (near Chalcedon), the bishop of Constantinople was deposed. The charges against him were ecclesiastical in character and relatively minor, reflecting the enmity a strong prelate was bound to provoke among his own clergy and flock.!°4 The fathers of The Oak found themselves incompetent to examine Chrysostom’s habitual insults,

but in their formal response to the emperor, in which they also announced his deposition and requested a forceable ejection, they recommended that he be tried by a civil court as well, on a charge of

lése-majesté (ka¥ooimotc) for reviling the sacred person of the empress. !%

Report of the deposition quickly reached the city. The people of Constantinople massed in revolt before the Great Church, and when palace guards appeared to take away their bishop they could not bear to let him go.!°° Chrysostom welcomed and. encouraged the intimacy of their attachment:

What God has joined, man cannot put asunder. ... Wherever you go, there I go also. We are one body. The body may not be separated from the head, nor the head from the body. . . . You are my limbs, my body, my light, even sweeter to me than this light of day.

In the same sermon he spoke of the source of his troubles, but compounded the usual insults by evoking Herodias, persecutor of John the Baptist: 104. Phot. Bsb/. cod. 59 (I, 53-57 Henry) gives the accusations excerpted from recorded acta.

105. Pall. Dza/. 8 (pp. 50-51 Coleman-Norton) quotes from the response (avapopa), which mentions briefs (AiBeAAo1) containing a formal charge of kavo-

ciwoig. As quoted, the response appears to be authentic. Palladius adds that the response (AvijveyKav) specified the nature of the charge: Hv 5& 7 KaVociwots 7 Eic tiv PpactrAiscoav Aovdopiav, wc éxeivor dviveyKay, Sti cizev adthy 'TeCaBer. As I read it, this passage expresses indignation that the fathers of The Oak considered John’s diatribes against Eudoxia to be kaVool@ots meriting capital punishment. F. van Ommeslaeghe, ‘‘Jean Chrysostome en conflit avec l’impératrice Eudoxie,’’ Az. Boff, 97 (1979), 132-33, takes the same words to mean that Palladius did not believe John had called Eudoxia Jezebel, ‘‘méme s’il ne le dit pas expressément.’’ On the contrary, the passage suggests that Chrysostom did employ provocative language against the empress, for Palladius would have expressed himself directly had he been able to do so. The text van Ommeslaeghe employs in his effort to clear Chrysostom (infra, n. 117) itself implies that the bishop had used unflattering comparisons with both Eve and Jezebel when he spoke of the empress (van Ommeslaeghe, ‘‘Chrysostome en conflit,’’ pp. 153, 155).

106. Soc. 6. 15. 18-20, Soz. 8. 18. 1-2.

Aelta Eudoma Augusta « 75

The seed of Jezebel is still with us. ... But bring on the wondrous, resourceful herald of life, John the poor man who owned not even a candle but possessed the lamp of Christ. Eve’s helpmate wanted his head!107

John Chrysostom abandoned his resistance far sooner than his name-

sake had. He knew that to compete with the dynasty for popular attachment was an exceptionally dangerous business.!°8 On the third day, when the crowds had dispersed at midday to pursue their normal occupations, the bishop slipped quietly from his church and accepted exile.

Then Eudoxia changed her mind. A misfortune struck her, very likely the fatal illness or accident that killed her daughter Flaccilla, and she feared terribly for the other children.1°9 In addition, ‘‘the

people raised an intolerable tumult.’’ The bishop’s departure so enraged his followers that their demonstrations spilled forth from the

Great Church, filled the markets, and reached the gates of the palace.!!° Eudoxia took these occurrences to be God’s judgment for her treatment of Chrysostom. The words she wrote begging him to return hint at her superstitious panic: Let your Holiness not think that this was my doing! I am guiltless of your blood. Base and depraved persons have contrived this against you. Ged is witness of my tears, for to Him I offer them as sacrifice. . . . 1 remember that by your hands my children wete baptized.

But Chrysostom could not be found. Then a marvelous thing happened! Like a woman possessed by fear for her lost child, she searched everywhere, not in her own body but by dispatching 107. Joh. Chrys. Hom. ante exil., PG, LII, 431. Doubts as to the authenticity of Chrysostom’s words here and in the Hom. cum tr. in extl., ibid., cols. 435-38, ate unfounded. These ‘‘sermons,’’ which repeat one another and occasionally lack coherence, seem to have been patched together from the same address, based on listeners’ notes; Baur, CArysostomus, 1, 181. Cf., however, J.A. de Aldama, Repertorium pseudochrysostomicum (Paris, 1965), pp. 155 no. 422, 198 no. 528. 108. Soc. foc. cét.: EpvurAattEto yap LH tic tapayy yévyntar Sv adtdv; Soz. Joc.

cit.: deloac, pr tt Etepov abt EyxAnpa rAaxetyn Oo... tov Shpov tapattovett. 109. Pall. Dial. 9 (p. 51 Coleman-Notton): Spadaly tia yevéodat év 1 Kott@vi; cf. Seeck, Geschichte, V, 362, 582 ad 362. 18. Baur, CArysostomus, Il, 227, suggests a miscafriage, but the chronology of Eudoxia’s pregnancies (supra, p. 53) makes this unlikely. Pall. Dia/. 9 (p. 56 Coleman-Norton) confirms fears for the imperial children: Evdo€{a, popydntt tov Oedv, éAEfjoucd cov té téKkva.

110. Soc. 6. 16. 1-5, Soz. 8. 18. 1-4. Note that Chrysostom attributed his ‘‘victory’’ to ‘‘the people of Constantinople’’ and insisted that their conduct showed

zeal rather than stasis: Hom. post redit. 2,5 (PG, LII, 444, 446; cf. next note).

76 « Theodostan Empresses

soldiers from her pesonal guard. . . . She sent everywhere in desperation that the quarry might be surrounded by cunning enemies, killed, and lost. . . . Then she called her husband, clasped his imperial knees, made hima partner in the hunt as Sarah did with Abraham. ‘‘We have lost our priest,’’ she said, ‘‘so let us bring him back. There is no hope for our Jasileia if we do not.’’!1!

It was Eudoxia’s eunuch Briso who turned up Chrysostom, in hiding

at a market-town in Bithynia. He returned with an imperial escott but could not reoccupy his see canonically until the decision of The Oak was overturned by another, more authoritative synod. In the meantime Eudoxia provided a suitable resort, one of her suburban palaces called Marianai.!!2 Continuing popular disturbances, however, forced Chrysostom to accede to imperial persuasion and reenter

Constantinople. ‘‘] will work henceforth in concert with you,’’ he declared to the delighted people, ‘‘and with the God-loving Augusta.” She too had pledged her efforts to maintain the fragile peace.'13 Within a few months Eudoxia again changed her mind. A city

prefect erected a silver statue of the empress wearing the pa/udamentum, locating it to the south of the Great Church before the senate house and providing public shows of dancers and mimes to celebrate, ‘‘as is the custom when imperial images are dedicated.’’! Chrysostom should have known by this time not to challenge the ceremonial exaltation of Eudoxia’s basi/eia, but he could not abide the shows or the noise so close to his church. He complained in a sermon. She responded with the threat of another synod. He returned

to the familiar insults: ‘‘Again Herodias rages, again she storms, again she aims to have the head of John on a platter.’’15 Hostile bishops assembled in Constantinople to consider new charges—that Chrysostom had reoccupied his see without proper conciliar authority. Arcadius broke off relations and, in the spring of 404, confined the bishop to his episcopal palace. On Easter morning, 111. Joh. Chrys. op. cit. 4 (cols. 445-46). The sermon is authentic Chrysostom, certainly known to Sozomen (8. 18. 5). 112. Soc. 6. 16. 6-8, Soz. 8. 18. 5-6; cf. Janin, Comstantinople?, p. 515, on the Martanat. 113. Joh. Chrys. op. cit. 5 (col. 447). 114. Soc. 6. 18. 1-5, Soz. 8. 20. 1~3, Marcell. com. @. 403. 2 (MGH: AA, XI, 67), Theoph., p. 79 de Boor. An inscription still exists on the statue’s base, CIL, III, 736; cf. C. Mango, ‘‘The Byzantine Inscriptions of Constantinople: A Bibliogtaphical Survey,’’ AJA 55 (1951), 63. 115. Soc., Soz. /oce. citt. The associated Chrysostom sermon in PG, LIX, 485-90, is unfortunately not authentic: Baur, CArysostomus, Il, 237 n. 8; Aldama, Repertorium, pp. 138-39 no. 381.

Aelia Eudoxia Augusta « 77

April 17, 404, and again the next day, government troops attacked white-clad catechumens who awaited baptism, leaving many dead. Aithough he had written to Innocent I, bishop of Rome (401-17), calling for an ecumenical council to hear his case, early in June, 404, Chrysostom was permanently exiled to Roman Armenia. His enraged followers (or perhaps their opponents) set fire to the Great Church of Constantinople, and the flames spread to the senate house and parts of the palace. Arsactus, the elderly brother of Nectarius, was ordained in

John’s place, but many refused to accept him. The popular revolt spread also to other cities, taking on alarming propoftions. On October 6, 404, Chrysostom’s antagonist Eudoxia, exhausted by the ordeal, suffered a fatal miscarriage. It may have been induced by a savage hailstorm four days earlier, which she took to be a sign of divine anger at her treatment of the bishop.1"¢ In antiquity pregnancy and childbearing always threatened a woman’s life, and to oppose a

holy man like Chrysostom was no less risky, subjecting one to the terrot of heaven’s wrath at any moment. Eudoxia accepted the risks. Like most women she gloried in children; her pride had a special depth, however, because her offspring meant public order and dynas-

tic security. Chrysostom’s insults not only belittled a woman but challenged the authenticity of an empress’ sacral bastleig.117

John Chrysostom’s words and conduct prove that there was another view. He thought himself beset by the archetypal female, controlled by sensuality, by nature fickle, and therefore to be pitied: You who are in the flesh make war against the incorporeal one. You who enjoy baths and perfumes and sex with a male do battle with the pure and untouched church. But you too will find yourself a widow, although your man still lives. For you are a woman, and you wish to make the church a widow. Last evening you addressed me as the thirteenth apostle, and today you call me Judas. Yesterday you sat with me as a friend, but now you spring on me like a wild animal."!8 116. Soc. 6. 19. 4-6; Soz. 8. 27. 1-2; Phot. Brb/. cod. 77 (I, 158 Henry); a pasch a. 404 (p. 569 Bonn); Seeck, Geschichte, V, 370; Baur, Chrysostomeus, 117. For discussion of Chrysostom’s conflict with Eudoxia see Baur, CArysostomus, II, 119-289, and Demougeot, Division, pp. 296-337; for examination of the

main ‘sources T. Gregory, ‘‘Zosimus 5. 23 and the People of Constantinople,” Byzantion 43 (1973), 61-83; and F. van Ommeslaeghe, ‘‘Que vaut le témoinage de Pallade sur le procés de Saint Jean Chrysostome?’’ Ax. Bo//. 95 (1977), 389-414, and ‘“Chrysostome en conflit,’’ pp. 132-59, drawing attention to the important vita ot funeral oration by Pseudo-Martyrius of Antioch, soon to be published. 118. Joh. Chrys. Hom. cum ir. in exil., PG, LII, 437 (supra, n. 107).

78 « Theodostan Empresses

This apprehension of Eudoxia’s motivation was tragically wrongheaded. It resulted from prejudices against women which, where an empress was concerned, were now dangerously out of date. Eventually

the court lost patience, when Chrysostom’s challenge to Eudoxia’s basileia provoked the people of Constantinople into sedition against the domestic side of the monarchy. In the reign of Arcadius, sedition against the domestic side struck all too close to the heart.

CHAPTER THREE

Aeha Pulcheria Augusta She conceived a godly resolve...

Eudoxia Augusta died in 404, leaving a worthy successor. During a long career (413-53), her daughter Pulcheria brought female dastleig to full fruition and employed it to change the course of history. Her ability to do so depended in part on inherited factors—on the Theodosian dynastic impetus, its enhancement of women, and the demilitartization of imperial ideology. But Pulcheria addressed her tasks with a unique and forceful personality, shaped during her childhood in the impressive environment of the eastern court. In July or August of less troubled years, the imperial family and the court habitually made their encumbered way to Ancyra in the highlands of Galatia, to give Arcadius a change of scenery, Claudian asserted, and to escape the full warmth of summer.! Apart from this the emperor and his family occupied: more or less continuously the

great palace of Constantinople, a labyrinthine array of structures

extending from the hippodrome southeastward on terraces ovetlooking the sea (fig. 1). In most of its quartets exterior walls established the proper distance between encroaching private structures and the haunts of Sast/eig.2 These walls enclosed gardens, galleries and walkways, private apartments, the barracks of the guard,

and, importantly, a venerable complex known as Daphne that included the grand audience hall of Constantine, now the ceremonial focus of the palace.3 This architectural setting repelled Synesius, who 1. Claud. In Eutr. 2. 97-102, 416; O. Seeck, Regesten der Kaiser und Papste (Stuttgart, 1919), pp. 291, 293, 295, 309. 2. CTA 15. 1. 47 (February 21, 409) orders removal of private structures from the palace vicinity, ‘‘nam imperio magna ab universis secreta debentur.”’

3. For the palace in general see Janin, Constantinop/le?, pp. 106-22, and W. Mueller-Wiener, Bildlexikon zur Topographie Istanbuls (Tiibingen, 1977), pp. 229-37, citing further literature; on its development in the fourth and fifth centuries esp. Dagron, Nasssance, pp. 92-97, and C. Mango, ‘‘Autour du Grand Palais de Constantinople,’’ Cahiers archéologiques 5 (1951), 179-86; on the Daphne see 79

80 « Theodosian Empresses

attributed to it and its inhabitants the lethargy of Arcadius and his unwartlike temperament. But for John Chrysostom it provided an

image of heaven, of God enthroned in majesty, flanked not by eunuchs and dissipated courtiers but by angels, archangels, and the host of saints.4 As if approaching divine majesty in silence and trem-

bling, great men entered the palace from the mesé through the fortified and heavily guarded Chalke gate, the antechamber of earthly

bastleia.> Less exalted folk confronted such majesty in contiguous exterior space, in the hippodrome or when they filled the nearby Augusteon square, to the left of the mesé as it led toward the Chalke. The people massed on this square to mourn the death of the emperor’s child or to express revolutionary outrage when the emperor exiled their bishop. Thus the sedentary habits of Arcadius had a function. When he resided at home, a potent setting emphasized his numinous

quality and at the same time brought him into necessary intimacy with the dynastic city.

Into this setting the children of Arcadius and Eudoxia were born, and here they flourished during their early years. Architecture imposed on them a notion of Sast/eia, as well as a consciousness of the

dynasty’s purpose. Parental influence may also be suspected, primarily that of the mother on her oldest surviving daughter.® Eudoxia’s forceful character, the superstitious piety and imperiousness apparent

in her conflict with John Chrysostom, might have molded all of her children in its own image, but by the time of her death only Pulcheria and perhaps Arcadia were old enough to be affected. Supervision of the imperial household then fell to the eunuch Antiochus, a young but ‘‘paunchy”’ individual of Armenian or Persian origin. Like EutroJanin, pp. 108, 112-13, and for early mention of it under that name Proclus of Constantinople in PG, L, 715, cf. F. Leroy, L’homlétigue de Proclus de Constanttnople, Studi e testi no. 247 (Vatican City, 1967), p. 158. 4, Joh. Chrys. In Matth. hom. 2. 1. (PG, LVI, 23). 5. C. Mango, The Brazen House, Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab: Arkacologisk-kunsthistoriske Meddelelser vol. IV, no. 4 (Copenhagen, 1959), discusses the Chalke and surrounding monuments. 6. The mother’s influence goes without saying for the girls. That boys were also raised by their mothers in aristocratic families during this period may be gathered from several passages of Chrysostom’s De inani gloria. He condemns the ornamentation of male children with gold, fine fabrics, necklaces, and even perfumes (16, 54), all presumably signs of female influence. He speaks of the mother, pedagogue, and body servant as the important influences on a boy's developing speech habits (31-32), and condemns the practice of allowing growing boys to bathe with the women of the family (60).

Aeha Pulcheria Augusta + 81

pius earlier in the reign, he had gained the confidence of the imperial family and headed the corps of eunuchs as praepositus sacri cubicult. In a letter to his brother, probably from the year following Eudoxia’s death, Synesius of Cyrene reported that Antiochus was so powerful at court that he could accomplish ‘‘whatever he wishes.’’? The death of

Arcadius (in 408) apparently changed little. Probably sometime between 408 and 412 St. Isidore of Pelusium wrote to the eunuch urging him to avoid the temptations resulting from his good fortune and to enforce justice, tottering and nearly extinguished as it was, ‘‘for you are not only a minister of the 4asz/eia but are able to direct it however you please.’’® Antiochus, however, did not match the ascendancy of Eutropius.

The government remained in other hands, while the chief eunuch managed only the imperial household, including the ‘‘most noble princesses’’ (nobilisstmae)? and the person of the orphaned Augustus

Theodosius. Antiochus, for example, arranged for the earliest education of the young emperor and his sisters, the traditional instruction in Greek and Latin reading and composition. Presumably a profes-

sional tutor was employed, as was the. normal practice in wealthy Roman houses.!° To provide healthy competition and to assimilate the education of Theodosius to that of any other aristocratic youth," at least two companions, Paulinus and Placitus, were brought in to share his lessons,!? and a similar procedure may have been followed for his sisters. Pulcheria, at least, excelled. In later years she would 7. Ep. 110; for the date supra, Chap. 2, n. 68. On Antiochus in general see PERE, Il, 101-2, ‘‘Antiochus 5,’’ and R. Naumann and H. Belting, Dre EuphemztaKirche am Hippodrom xu Istanbul und thre Fresken (Berlin, 1966), pp. 15-21. A statue base found during excavation of the Euphemia church confirms him as ANT]OXOY ITIPEIIO [oitov}. 8. Ep. 1. 36 (PG, LXXVIII, 204); cf. M. Smith, ‘‘The Manuscript Tradition of Isidore of Pelusium,’’ HTAR 47 (1954), 205-10, on the nature of the letters. The one in question must date from.before Antiochus’ fall from power in 412. That it was

written after the death of Arcadius is less certain, but Isidore’s words would be particularly fitting for the de facto guardian of the child emperor. 9. For the title Chron. pasch. a. 414 (p. 571 Bonn) and CTA 13. 1. 21; for its significance Grégoire and Kugener, ‘‘Quand est né,’’ pp. 341-44.

10. H.-I. Marrou, Histotre de l'éducation dans l'antiquité, 7th ed. (Patis, 1965), p. 390. For this practice in the reign of Arcadius see Jerome Ep. 107. 4 (V, 148

Labourt) and Joh. Chrys. De inant gloria 38. .

cf. 12.Matrou, Education, p. 398. " Paulinus at least was from a powerful family, being the son of a comes

11. Jerome Ep. 107. 9 (V, 153-54 Labourt); Joh. Chrys. De inant gloria 67, 77;

domesticorum. See Joh. Ant. frg. 192 (FHG, IV, 612) and Joh. Mal. 14 (p. 352° Bonn), also PERE, II, 846, ‘Paulinus 8,’’ 891, ‘‘Placitus.’’

82 » Theodostan Empresses

receive praise for her unusual skill in speaking and writing both languages of the Empire." St. Isidore’s letter implies that Antiochus had enemies, aristocrats like those who had found the power of Eutropius so distasteful some years earlier. As long as he profited from the affection of the

imperial children, the eunuch could feel secure. But the house of Theodosius might itself be overthrown, a possibility so real that some

contemporaries were astonished it did not happen.'4 There may in fact have been one attempt to remove the dynasty by force in this period. In his Lzfe of Isidore the Neoplatonist Damascius (sixth century) told the story of Lucius, a pagan who held the office of magister militum in the time of Theodosius. Lucius penetrated into the imperial apartments one day with the intention of killing the emperor. But when he had tried vainly three times to draw his sword from its scabbard he gave up and withdrew in terror, for he had seen ‘‘a giant and burly woman’’ standing behind the emperor and folding him in her protecting arms.!> It seems that pagan speculation on the emperor's divine protectors crept into this account. The ‘‘woman’’ in

question may have been the hypostasized Fortune or Tyche of the emperor, the rough equivalent of the genius pub/icus which, according to the historian Ammianus, had accompanied Julian during his reign.'®

Presumably some more concrete defense turned aside the sword of Lucius. But the attempt itself was genuine, and it probably occurred during the vulnerable early years of Theodosius II.17 Thus Antiochus had reason to undertake a diplomatic campaign to protect both the child emperor and himself. A number of later 13. Soz. 9. 1. 5. 14. Soz. 9. 6. 1, Thdt. HE 5. 36. 3. 15. Damasc. V. Istd. frg. 303 Zintzen. 16. Amm. 20. 5. 10, 25. 2. 3-4; cf. S. MacCormack, ‘‘Roma, Constantinopolis, the Emperor, and His Genius,’’ CQ n.s. 25 (1975), 144-45. 17. Demandt, RE, suppl. XII (1970), 747, ‘‘Magister Milittum,’’ makes Lucius magister militum praesentalis and places him early in the reign of Theodosius II. He may well have been the Lucius whom Anthemtus ordered to drive Chrysostom’s followers from the Baths of Constantine on Easter morning, 404: Pall. Dza/. 9-10 (pp. 57, 60 Coleman-Norton). That Lucius was also a military man, a pagan, and, to judge from his name, a Roman. He was precisely the kind of man Anthemius would have promoted to the upper ranks of the army. Note also that an otherwise unknown Lucius served as eastern consul in 413, an honor that often went to magéstri milttum and others of the highest rank in the year of their promotion, for example, Plinta in 419, Asclepiodotus in 423, and Zeno in 448. Demand, col. 755, observes the relative frequency with which the consulship was conferred upon magistri militum during this reign. PLRE, II, 691-92, recognizes three separate Luci.

Aeha Pulcheria Augusta - 83

authors, the earliest writing well over a century later than the events, reported that as Arcadius lay dying he foresaw the precarious situation of his son. Worried about possible usurpers, but not wishing to set up a co-emperor who would surely replace his own dynasty, Arcadius made the Persian king Yazdgard I (399-420) the boy’s ‘‘guardian’’

(éx{tpomoc), including a provision to this effect in his will and writing personally to the Persian to request his protection. The latter did not refuse. He dispatched a letter to the senate of Constantinople threatening war on any who might conspire against Theodosius II.18 Despite the skepticism of both ancient and modern authors,’ there is no reason to reject this much of the story. Cooperation of this type between the two great monarchies was not impossible. In the next century the Persian king Kavadh (d. 531) was to propose the converse arrangement, that the Roman emperor adopt his son and successor and protect him against a rebellious nobility.2° Moreover, excellent relations with Yazdgard made the project feasible, and it would have been effective. Prospective challengers for the Jast/eia would face the likelihood of an immediate Persian attack. But the ancient sources are

probably wrong in their assertion that Yazdgard sent one of his eunuchs to exercise his guardianship. The eunuch mentioned Is Antiochus, and he had been powerful in the Roman court some yeats before the death of Arcadius. More likely Antiochus sponsored the idea. His initiative and his own Oriental origins reinforced the notion that he acted as agent of the Persian king. 18. The Greek sources are Procop. B. Pers. 1, 2. 1-10; Agath. 4. 26; Theoph. a.m. 5900 (p. 80 de Boor); Cedren. 334c (p. 586 Bonn); Zon. 13. 22. The episode also appears in a number of Oriental sources, some of which may represent independent tradition. See Mich. Syr. 8. 1. (II, 2 Chabot); Bar Hebr., I, 66 WallisBudge; Chron. ad a. 1234 28 (CSCO: SS, CEX, 136-37); and esp. the odd account in U.M. Daudpota, ‘‘The Annals of Hamzah al-Ishfahani,’’ Journal of the K.R. Camal Oriental Institute 22 (1932), 71-72. 19. In antiquity Agath. 4. 26 expressed skepticism. Among modern scholars P. Sauerbrei, ‘‘Kénig Jazdegerd der Siinder, der Vormund des byzantinischen Kaisets Theodosius des Kleinen,’’ Festchrift Albert von Bamberg (Gotha, 1905), pp.

90-108, rejected the story as fabulous; Averil Cameron, ‘‘Agathias on the Sassanians,’’ DOP 23-24 (1969/70), 149, believes it was a diplomatic gesture on the part of Anthemius (or someone else) to secure peace; and P. Pieler, ‘‘L’aspect politique et juridique de l’adoption de Chosroés proposée. par les Perses 4 Justin,’’ Revue internationale des drotts de l’antiquité set. 3, 19 (1972), 408-20, takes it as a serious attempt on the part of Arcadius to secure the succession. All three positions have numerous adherents. 20. Procop. B. Pers. 1. 11. 1-30; A.A. Vasiliev, Justin the First (Cambridge, Mass., 1950), pp. 265-68; B. Rubin, Das Zeitalter Justinians, 1 (Berlin, 1960), pp. 259-60; Pieler, ‘‘L’aspect politique,’’ pp. 399-407, 421-33.

84 « Theodostan Empresses

Like the attack of Lucius, the intervention of the Persian king on

behalf of young Theodosius II demonstrates that the dynasty was indeed in trouble. The historian Socrates, a later contemporary who must have known the truth, included in his work a passage that reveals more clearly the nature of the danger. Socrates did not credit the stability of the monarchy to the emperor’s Tyche or the diplomacy

of Antiochus but to Anthemius ‘‘the Great,’’ praetorian prefect of the East:? When Arcadius died, the East came under his son Theodosius the Younger,

who was only seven years old, but Anthemius the prefect had complete charge of the administration. . . . This man won the reputation of being the most intelligent of his time, and in fact he was. He did nothing without counsel, sharing with eminent men his deliberations on the proper course of action. In particular he consulted Troilus the sophist, who, in addition to his

own specialty, was no less an expert at politics than Anthemius. Thus Anthemius nearly always acted on the advice of Troilus.?2

The passage diverts attention from 4asi/eia and the palace to the salutary operations of political genius. It strikingly equates the genius of Anthemius with his accessibility to men of ambition, suggesting as

well their identities and the nature of their claims. The historian himself provided one name. Lavish in his praise of Troilus,23 Socrates seems to have encountered him during school years in Constantinople and very likely formed ties with others like htm who responded favor-

ably to the regime of Anthemius. Such men may be discovered in greater numbers among the correspondents of Synesius. A prominent Neoplatonist and distinguished native of Cyrene, a city of the Libyan Pentapolis, Synesius had traveled to Constantinople in 399 to advance the interests of his provincial community. While there he delivered De regno before Arcadius, interpreted the revolt of Gainas in De providentia, and

acquired many friends, contacts he was able to exploit when he returned to Cyrene in 402.24 Success depended on the favor of men like the revered Marcion, former governor of Paphlagonia and now 21. For the epithet ‘‘great’’ see CIL, III, 739, and Syn. Epp. 47, 73. 22. Soc. 7. 1. 1, 3. 23. Cf. 6. 6. 36, 7. 12. 10, 27. 1, 37. 1 with the excellent observation of Henri de Valois (printed in PG, LXVII, 18): ‘‘toties enim, tamque honorifice e1us mentionem facit, ut magistro Minerval solvere videatur.”’ 24, Lacombrade, Synéstos, pp. 84-130; in general now J. Bregman, Sywesius of Cyrene (Berkeley-Los Angeles-London, 1982).

Aelia Pulcheria Augusta « 85 | head of a literary circle called the Panhellenion.?> Simplicius, Trypho, and Count Paeonius, men who had served in the Pentapolis as governors or military commanders, would help because of the friendships

and common interests they had formed. there. Paeonius was also approachable through philosophy, so Synesius presented him with a type of star chart of his own design, constructed in silver.26 Indeed, learning proved to be Synesius’ greatest asset. To Nicander he sent his Eulogy of Baldness, asking him to show it to his ‘‘Hellenic’’ friends (toig “EAAnot). The most inspired poet of the time was Theotimus, whom Synesius expected to intervene in favor of the Pentapolis. The sophist Troilus, whom Socrates admired, was close enough to Synesius

to be asked for books, and Synesius confirmed that Troilus, and Nicander and Theotimus besides, were intimates of the great Anthemius.27 Count John, on the other hand, had influence at court, as did John’s associate Aurelian, a ‘‘friend,’’ as Synesius called him. and Osiris in De providentia.® Because Synesius wrote for practical reasons, his correspondence illustrates how a man could acquire and use influence in the early years of Theodosius II. A decade or so after his grandfather had closed the temples and outlawed sacrifice, within a few yeats of the Frigidus miracle and despite the advertised piety of the court, adherence to the dynastic faith had not yet entirely displaced the traditional criteria for political success. Synesius and his correspondents would have felt more comfortable with a Tatianus as the emperor’s prime minister than with a Maternus Cynegius or a Rufinus. It was not primarily a matter of religion. For contemporaries the word ‘‘Hellene’’ did evoke

paganism,29 and since Synesius employed it freely in letters that circulated and could have come into the wrong hands, presumably

some of his friends did not object to being tagged as such. But Socrates likewise admired Troilus and Anthemius, and to judge from

his History he was thoroughly Christian. Count John’s name is enough to imply a Christian background, but in any case no selfconfessed pagan could have enjoyed such intimacy with Eudoxia. The 25. Syn. Epp. 101, 119. 26. Ibid, 24, 28, 129-30, 134, 142, 154; also Ad Paeonium (ed. Terzaghi). 27. Epp. 1, 26, 47, 49, 73, 75, 91, 99, 111, 118, 129. On Theotimus cf, D. Runia, ‘‘Another Wandering Poet,’’ Historia 28 (1979), 254-56. 28. 22, 31, 34, 38, 43, 46, 79, 100, 110. 29. K. Lechner, Hellenen und Barbaren im Welthild der Byzantiner (Munich, 1954), pp. 16-37.

86 « Theodostan Empresses

latter consideration applies to Aurelian as well, and Synesius attested to his orthodox piety, as did his patronage of St. Stephen Protomartyr, for whom Aurelian constructed 2 memorial chapel earlier in his career.3° The bond that united these men—Socrates, John, Aurelian,

and the rest—was not religion but a shared commitment to Greek culture and the traditional qualifications for public careers. Their prospects had risen dramatically since 395, because the fall of Rufinus and the ensuing division of East from West meant the disappeatance of Theodosian westerners from high office or their amalgamation into the eastern cultural sphere.3! As Themistius had recommended long before, Arcadius and Theodosius II finally did draw from the senate of Constantinople the men they needed to govern the Empire.3? Anthemius was just such a man.33 Apparently of Egyptian origin, his family had emerged from obscurity only two generations earlier,

in the time of Constantius I], when his grandfather Philippus, who was the son of a sausage-seller, learned stenography, entered the imperial service, and advanced to the praetorian prefecture of the East.54 Anthemius himself first appeared in high office as comes sacrarum largitionum in 400, in the wake of the Gainas revolt. As magister offictorum in 404 he dispatched the troops who slaughtered catechumens in Constantinople on Easter morning, and by November, 405, he was praetorian prefect of the East.35 No evidence exists 30. On names as an indication of religious adherence see recently R. von Haehling, Die Religionszugehorigkeit der hohen Amtstrager des rimischen Reiches seit Constantins I. Alleinherrschaft bis zum Ende der theodostanischen Dynastie, Antiquitas ser. 3, vol. XXIII (Bonn, 1978), pp. 25-28; on Aurelian’s religion Syn. De prov. 1. 18 (pp. 108-9 Terzaghi), and for his church V.S. Isaac? (AASS, May, VU, 253), Theod. Anag. HE frg. 52, Epit. 467 (ed. Hansen). Troilus himself was most likely a Christian; see Alan Cameron, ‘‘The Empress and the Poet,’’ Yale Classical Studies 27 (1981), 272. In this important study (pp. 271-79 and passim) Cameron rejects the view I expressed in my paper ‘‘Pulcheria’s Crusade,’’ that political clashes in this period reflected ideological and cultural differences as well as personal ones, a view I find amply attested in the sources and more plausible than that of Cameron. 31, The Cynegius attested 402 as comes comsistorianus (supra, Chap. 2, n. 32) may have been an exception, but his office, if any, is unknown. 32. This was a principal aspect of the division of East from West that escaped the searching analysis of Demougeot, Division.

33. In general Zakrzewski, Partt, pp. 156-77; Demougeot, Drvision, pp. 338-51, 499-519 (neither, however, satisfactory); Stein, Histoire, I, 245-47; PLRE, II, 93-95, ‘‘Anthemius 1’'; on the family esp. J. Keil, ‘‘Die Familie des Pratorianerpraifekten Anthemius,’’ Anzeiger der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philosophisch-historische Klasse 79 (1942), 185-203. 34. PLRE, 1, 696-97, ‘‘Flavius Philippus’’; A.H.M. Jones, ‘‘The Career of Flavius Philippus,’’ Historia 4 (1955), 229-33.

35. CTA 7. 10. 1 (July 10, 405) gives the correct terminus a quo for his prefecture; cf. Jones, ‘Collegiate Prefectures,’’ p. 81.

Aeha Pulcheria Augusta + 87

on the man’s religious stance. Like John and Aurelian he must have professed Christianity, while his association with Troilus confirms receptiveness to the claims of the Hellenes. In the first years of the new prefecture deaths of several troublemakers eased the turmoil in the East. With Eudoxia dead, persecution of the ‘‘Johnites,’’ as the schismatic followers of Chrysostom were now known, could safely be suspended.3° But their dissension would have lost its thrust in any case, because in 407 the exiled bishop also died. Stilicho reclaimed all Illyricum for the West in 406, and in 408 prepared to march to Constantinople and impose himself as protector of the orphaned Theodosius II. But in August of that year a clique of enemies persuaded Honorius to execute the western generalissimo, and with his death the Theodosian policy of imperial unity lost its aggtessiveness.37 Simultaneously, old antagonisms subsided on the East’s opposite frontier. Earlier in his career Anthemius had taken part in an embassy to the court of Sassanian Persia, an embassy which had established such good relations with King Yazdgard I that John Chrysostom was able to envision the evangelization of his subjects.38

About 409 a second mission departed with instructions to enlist Yazdgard’s assistance in settling quarrels among the Christian bishops of his territory. The effort succeeded beyond expectation. At a synod in 410 the king recognized the Christians of Persia as a lawful entity under the bishop (4a¢ho/tkos) of his capital Seleucia-Ctesiphon, and they began to enjoy official toleration.39 Anthemius reaped credit on all sides for eastern prosperity. The

enthusiasm of Socrates implied more, of course, than attachment from a school connection. Like Socrates John Chrysostom stressed Anthemius’ copious sagacity, writing from exile to ‘‘Anthemius my most gentle mastet.’’ Verse panegyrics from the pen of Theotimus 36. Syn. Ep. 66 confirms the conclusion of ‘‘peace,’’ while Chrysostom himself congratulated Anthemius from exile for his consulship and the prefecture: Ep. 147 (PG, LI, 699). 37. Of course the East continued to act as if the Empire were still one; see W. Kaegi, Byzantium and the Decline of Rome (Princeton, 1968), pp. 15-29. 38. Ep. 14 (PG, LII, 618), and cf. Soc. 7. 8. 5, 18, Theoph. a. 22. 5906 (p. 82 de Boor). For Yazdgard’s benevolence toward Christians see J. Labourt, Le christianisme dans l'Empire perse sous la dynastie Sassanide (224-632), 2nd ed. (Patis, 1904), pp. 87-103, and A. Christensen, L'Iran sous les Sassanides, 2nd ed. (Copenhagen, 1944), pp. 269-72. The embassy of Anthemius, known only from Thdt. Hisé. re/. 8 (PG, LXXXH, 1369), took place before he received the prefecture but cannot be dated precisely. 39. Synodicon orientale ou recueil de synodes nestoriens, ed. and trans. J.-B. Chabot (Paris, 1902), pp. 254-75; cf. Labourt, CAristianisme, pp. 93-99.

88 + Theodosian Empresses

weie expected to immortalize his accomplishments among Greek litterateurs. As Synesius put it succinctly, ‘‘the times belong to Anthemtius.’’4°

The emperor was equally lavish. Already consul in 405, by the next year the great prefect had received the distinction patricius,” and, more significantly, his office was extended far beyond the nor-

mal four- or five-year maximum. Apparently the court found his services indispensable. He employed his position, as Socrates observed,

to cement an unprecedented grip on the government. Within a few months of his father’s death, Theodosius II ordered Anthemius to have the instructions of all provincial delegations read officially and weighed before your sublimity, so that your sublimity might choose out whatever you approve as worthy of our decision and the indulgence of our clemency and bring it without hesitation before us.42

This constitution illustrates well the workings of government in the emperor’s eighth year. In effect Anthemius received complete authority to formulate a response as he saw fit, and access to the palace to secure the necessary imperial signature. Petitioners such as Synesius must have appreciated some of the Anthemian legislation, for example, the constitutions to hinder military exactions from the provincials#3 and a general remission of taxes in the eastern prefecture that affected all amounts overdue from the past forty years.44 The profound objectives of Anthemian statecraft may best be appreciated from another project, one which, like his lengthy tenure of office, extended beyond the normal prerogatives of his prefecture. In the summer of 408 the Hun chief Uldin, who had killed Gainas eight years before, led a large host of his warriors and allies across the

Danube. Seizing the fortified town of Castra Martis in Dacia, he advanced eastward, pillaging into Thrace. When a Roman prefect of

soldiers attempted to negotiate, the Hun demanded an exorbitant tribute, pointing to the morning sun and boasting of the power to conquer ‘‘all the lands Helios sees in his rising.’’ To judge from the 40. Joh. Chrys. Ep. 147 (PG, LII, 699), Syn. Epp. 47, 73. 41. CTA 9. 34. 10. 42. CTA 12. 12. 14; cf. the procedure adopted for similar business in CTA 12. 12. 4 (364) and 10 (385).

43. CTh 7. 4. 28, 31-32, 11. 1, 8. 5. 66; cf. Zakrzewski, Parti, p. 169. Synesius had complained of such abuses in De regno 24 (pp. 53-54 Terzaghi). 44, CTA 11. 28. 9; cf. Syn. De regno 25 (pp. 54-55 Terzaghi).

Aelia Pulcheria Augusta « 89

geographical position, this threat evoked a march on Constantinople.

Fortunately, enough of Uldin’s allies deserted to force him into retreat and a natrow escape beyond the Danube with heavy losses.‘ But reports of his threat reached Constantinople,*6 and the prospect of similar attacks in the future with similar attempts to intimidate the government induced Anthemtius to undertake the most extensive building project of his time and the greatest monument of his prefecture. A new defensive wall went up on the landward side of Constantinople to protect the expanding Theodosian city. Laid out roughly

1,500 meters west of the Constantinian wall, it curved from the Propontis northward to existing fortifications of the Blachernai region overlooking the Golden Horn (fig. 1).47 Construction of the wall and

its towers already approached completion by the summer of 413, when Theodosius issued a constitution attributing these works to the ‘zeal and foresight’’ of Anthemius.*® The chronology is enough to suggest that the prefect refortified Constantinople in reaction to the alarming summer of 408. A related factor must also have weighed heavily in Anthemius’ thinking. Behind Uldin’s raid loomed the memory of Gainas’ revolt

in 399-400, when one of the emperor’s own generals had seized Constantinople and forced the emperor to do his bidding. That event must have terrified a whole generation of eastern politicians.49 Anthemius strengthened Constantinople in part to defend civilian government from intimidation and attacks by the field army. His wall defended a new system of government, in which politicians could control a weak emperor in full security. 45. Soz. 9.5, CTA 5. 6. 2-3 (409), Jerome In Isatam 7. 20 (PL, XXIV, 113); cf.

Maenchen-Helfen, Huns, pp. 63-67. 46. Sozomen’s account seems to reflect the impression Uldin’s boast made on. his Constantinopolitan informants. 47. B. Meyer-Plath and A.M. Schneider, Die Landmauern von Konstantinopel, 11 (Berlin, 1943); for a more concise description Janin, Comstantinople?, pp. 265-83. 48. CTA 15. 1. 51. Meyer-Plath and Schneider, Landmanern, VI, 2-3, 16-17, extend the Anthemian phase of construction to 422 and beyond, but if the bulk of the work had not been completed by 414 when Anthemius fell or died (see infra, p. 96) Socrates would not have credited the walls to him (7. 1. 3) nor would an official who undertook repairs later in the fifth century have compared himself with the great prefect: ‘‘portarvm valido firmavit limine mvros/Pvsaevs magno non minot Anthemio”’ (CIL, III, 739). 49. Cf. Dagron, Naissance, pp. 110-11.

90 - Theodostan Empresses

On May 19, 406, Constantinople again celebrated the adventus of holy bones, this time those of the prophet Samuel.°° The emperor himself had commanded that they be brought from the Holy Land. These ‘‘merest pieces of ash,’’ as St. Jerome described them, came to

Chalcedon under the reverent care of bishops, in a golden box shrouded with silk. Ferried across the Propontis, they arrived on the urban shore, where great men assembled to escort them into the city. The entire senate marched in the cortege, and at its head walked the emperor, flanked by Aemilian, ex-consul and prefect of the city, and

by Anthemius, who had received the praetorian prefecture in the previous year. Crowds of the faithful who thronged joyfully to catch

sight of the prophet ‘‘as if living and present’’ were treated to an impressive display of social order. Anthemius and Aemilian acquired prestige from physical association with the emperor’s sacred person

and with the holy dead, but, like the great men of the senate, they also served to add brilliance and authority to the occasion.>! It was Arcadius who led the procession, issuing forth from the palace to make himself conspicuous in the dynastic city. As in the time of Eudoxia, the court exploited the mass appeal of the cult of relics to solidify popular and religious foundations for Theodosian basi/leiz. Anthemius thus appeared at the beginning of his prefecture as a dutiful minister of the dynasty’s interests. No trace has survived of his personal views of Jasi/eia, but it is unlikely that he favored Synesius’ argument that a proper emperor should know his soldiers and share the life of the camp. The existing system admirably suited his interests and those of his friends, and he served it faithfully through the early years of Theodosius II. Then restiveness surfaced in the palace. Pulcheria revealed dangerous signs of precocity, an echo, perhaps, of her mother’s imperious character, but also the imprint of formative years in a palace society that imposed a strong sense of dynastic prerogatives. Reconstructing family dynamics among Theodosius and his sisters is a hazardous business, but it may be assumed that the eldest

among the orphaned siblings took the role of arbiter among them and that this brought out a domineering side in her personality. The result was public enough to find its way into the chronicles. In 412 50. Chron. pasch. a. 406 (p. 569 Bonn), Jerome Contra Vigil. 5 (PL, XXIII, 8) 51. Cf. the ‘‘senate’’ that presided over the Council of Chalcedon for a similar display of brilliance and authority: :zfra, p. 214.

Aelia Pulcheria Augusta « 91

Pulcheria quatreled with Antiochus, who like Anthemius had served the dynasty faithfully for a number of years, and induced her brother to dismiss him from the duties of praepositus. She then took personal charge of the imperial family, directing its affairs with such authority that she became known in society at large as the emperot’s ‘‘guardian’’ (€nitpomos) 52

Elements of family tradition quickly manifested themselves. Pulcheria embraced the image of Flaccilla’s piety and exalted humility

and imposed it on her sisters and Theodosius as well. As Socrates described it, the imperial palace, in Eudoxia’s time the focus of grand

society where women like Marsa and Castricia gathered to discuss affairs of state, now took on a decidedly monastic tone. At canonical hours day and night the emperor and his sisters came together to chant antiphons and to recite passages of Scripture learned by heart. They fasted on Wednesdays and Fridays, and the young women, following the precepts of church fathers,>? gave up such vanities as cosmetics, luxurious apparel, and the usual idleness of aristocratic females, to devote themselves to the loom and other household occupations suitable for ‘‘admirable’’ women. At an early age Pulcheria likewise embraced her family’s tradition of philanthropy ‘‘for the least of these,’’ founding houses of prayer, refuges for beggars and the

homeless, and monastic communities, and providing generously for their support from her personal income.*4 The historian Sozomen, who like Socrates contributed much to this flattering picture of life in Pulcheria’s court, invited skeptical readers to look into existing records

of her stewards.*5 Also a later contemporary, Sozomen presumably spoke with these stewards and examined their records, so his account has the authority of personal eyewitness. Meanwhile Theodosius advanced from the grammar lessons of childhood to the study of rhetoric under the respectful guidance of professional teachers.5° The young emperor devoted himself to the formal aspects of classical education. As he matured he acquired the 52. Theoph. a.m. 5905 (p. 82 de Boor), Soz. 9. 1. 2-3. Sozomen’s term éxitponos implied moral authority only and not ¢ate/a or curatefa over the emperor, which the Roman civil law did not permit; see Pieler, ‘‘Aspect politique,’’ pp. 415-20. 53. For near-contemporaty examples see Joh. Chrys. Laus Max. 9 (PG, LI, 240), De inant gloria 17, 90; Jerome Ep. 107. 5-6, 10 (V, 150-51, 154-55 Labourt).

54, Soc. 7. 22. 4~6, Soz. 9. 1. 10-11, 3. 1-2, Thdt. HE 5. 36. 4. 55. 9. 1. Al. 56. Soz. 9. 1. 6.

92 « Theodostan Empresses

reputation of a knowledgeable critic of discourses and an avid cotrector of manuscripts who often worked far into the night with his pen and his lamp.*’ According to Sozomen, Pulcheria also provided him with the external qualities of a ruler, with what M.P. Charlesworth

fittingly labeled ‘‘tmperial deportment.’’5® Riding masters and in-

structors in swordsmanship came to the palace, while Pulcheria herself taught her brother how to sit and walk in a grand manner, how to manage the complexities of his official costume, how to keep his laughter in check, to show gentleness and anger appropriately, and to appear knowledgeable when inquiring about matters of state.°? Thus Theodosius could perform effectively on ceremonial occasions. Min-

isters such as Anthemius entered the palace regularly to present documents for signature of to pafticipate in sessions of the imperial advisory council. They needed to be impressed, as did the people of Constantinople when the youthful emperor emerged from his mysterious isolation to celebrate in their midst.® Significantly, Sozomen said little of statecraft and omitted generalship altogether, areas of little practical value in current imperial practice. Above all, Pulcheria saw to her brother’s religious training, the

primary concern of Christian educational theorists.6 Theodosius learned the importance of worship, ascetic discipline, and works of philanthropy, and of regular intercourse with outstanding holy men,

some of whom probably visited the palace to provide the correct examples of virtue.© In his rhetorical studies, biblical and patristic texts rich in lessons for Christian conduct would have replaced some of the traditional readings in classical authors.*4 And Pulcheria most likely insulated her brother from the attraction of women, according 57. Soz. praef. 4, 7-8, 10-12, 18, Soc. 7. 22. 6. Because of his interest in manuscripts Theodosius received the appellation ‘‘calligrapher,’’ perhaps even among his contemporaries. See George the Monk (p. 604 de Boor), and A. Lippold, RE, suppl. XIH (1973), 967, ‘“Theodosius II.’’ 58. M.P. Charlesworth, ‘‘Imperial Deportment: Two Texts and Some Questions,’’ JRS 37 (1947), 34—38, discussing Amm. 16. 10. 9-11 on the conduct of Constantius II when he visited Rome tn 357.

59. Soz. 9. 1. 6-7. Chrysostom De inani gloria 74, 84, 89 recommends similar training for young men destined for military or political careers. 60. As they were at a meeting of the consistory, 431, when one participant reacted to Theodosius like ‘‘a lion among his thousand whelps’’: z/ra, p. 169. 61. E.g., 411, when Theodosius presided over the celebration of his decennalia: Marcell. com. a. 411. 1 (MGH: AA, XI, 70). 62. Joh. Chrys. De inant gloria 18; cf. Matrou, Education, pp. 451-52. 63. Soz. 9. 1. 8, Joh. Chrys. De inant gloria 78, 83. 64. Recommended in Joh. Chrys. De inani gloria 28, 38-43.

Aelta Pulcheria Augusta + 93

to St. John Chrysostom the greatest hazard in the pathway of a young man seeking perfection.®

Socrates, Sozomen, and other sources thus reveal continuity between the notion of Sasi/eia that Pulcheria imposed on her siblings and those advertised for Flaccilla and Eudoxia. In one respect, however, she broke sharply with Theodosian tradition. Sozomen reports that in her fourteenth year (before July 1, 413) Pulcheria ‘‘devoted her virginity to God’’ and impressed the same resolution upon her sisters. This was no private vow but one entered into in the full light of publicity. ‘“Taking her subjects, the priesthood, and God himself to witness,’” Sozomen continues, she dedicated an altar decorated with gold and precious stones in the Great Church of Constantinople. She did it, he says, “‘on behalf of her own virginity and her brother’s rule,’’ ordering that these words be inscribed on the face of the altar

‘“so that they might be visible to all.’’® With this act Eudoxia’s daughter denied to herself and her sisters access to the power an imperial woman could acquire through childbearing. It must have had an even weightier motivation. Presumably Sozomen knew the truth. Evoking first a ‘‘godly resolve’ which Pulcheria acquired despite her youth; he adds a more telling explanation, that Pulcheria adopted virginity and imposed it on her sisters ‘‘to avoid bringing another male into the palace and to remove any opportunity for the plots of ambitious men.’’® Indelicacy

might have touched an imperial nerve, so the historian omitted names. But the “‘godly resolve’’ of which he wrote manifested itself

with the onset of pubescence just as ambitious men expected Pulcheria to marry, and within a few years the same physiological change

would come to Arcadia and Marina. The ‘‘plots,’’ therefore, were proposals of marriage, requiring vows in stone ‘‘visible to all’’ in order to preclude attempts to repeat them.® 65. Ibid. 53, 59-62. Chrysostom, who believed that the passion for women struck a young man suddenly after his fifteenth birthday (76), recommended early mattiage as the surest defense (81-82). For reasons of her own Pulcheria avoided this strategy: infra, p. 120.

66. Soz. 9. 1. 3-4. 67. lbid.: copotatov kal Vetov EAaBev vobv ... thv adbtiisg napveviav tO

Je@ dvednke kal tac ddEAQaic Ext tov adtov éxarday@ynos Blov, Snws ph GAAOV

&vépa tnxeioayadyyn toic Pacweloic Kal ChAov Kal éxiPovAfic nicav avéAn GPOPH Ty.

68. In 364 a law of the emperor Jovian threatened with capital punishment those who solicited virgins for marriage (CTA 9. 25. 2); in 420 Honorius prescribed confiscation of property and exile (CTA 16. 2. 44, Comst. Sirm. 10).

94 -« Theodostan Empresses

Those who imposed themselves on Pulcheria in 412-13 did so because they understood how readily the 4asi/eig could be communicated through &edeza. In the case of Rufinus the prospect alone had

sufficed to produce rumors of imperial ambition.® In 434 Justa Grata Honoria was to infect her paramour, although he was only the steward of her estates,?° with distinction enough to warrant a hasty excision. Pulcheria understood this. In addition, if she or one of her sistefs martied, inevitably the new consort would bring into the palace the baggage of new kin and unwanted obligations, along with competition for influence over Theodosius. On its surface Pulcheria’s ‘‘godly resolve’’ looks suspiciously like mature enjoyment of rank and

distance, joined with a child’s unwillingness to share it. Sozomen’s compunctions can no longer discourage efforts to identify those involved in the ‘‘plots.’’ After extended service Pulcheria

displaced Antiochus in 412, at least within months of her public dedication and perhaps simultaneously with it. The congruence of these two events suggests a causal connection between them, that Antiochus lost his office because he resisted Pulcheria’s ‘‘godly re-

solve.’’ Such resistance implied of course that in 412 Antiochus favored a marriage, and if he did the benefactor of the proposed kedeta may be identified. The power of Anthemius and the stability of his government presuppose excellent relations with the palace, where Antiochus had held sway since about the time the great prefect came to power. Now, a case of imperial pubescence threatened this arrangement with the likelihood of an extraneous martiage connection, so Anthemius, with the eunuch’s support, undertook to claim it for himself. The scenario unfolds with remarkable ease. Married long since and many years Pulcheria’s senior, Anthemius naturally proposed a descendant or close relative, a grandson perhaps, a young man like the attested Flavius Anthemius Isidorus Theophilus, born a few years earlier than Pulcheria and an excellent prospect for her hand.7! A grandson of Anthemius did carry a great deal of baggage. Bathed 1n the glory of the great man’s prefecture, he would have out-

shone Theodosius in aristocratic eyes. The family boasted other 69. Sources in Demougeot, Division, p. 157 n. 194; cf. Alan Cameron, Claudian, pp. 91-92. 70. Joh. Ant. frg. 199 (FHG, IV, 613), Marcell. com. 2. 434 (MGH: AA, XI, ”. 71. On this Istdorus, unknown to Keil, see St. Pal. Pap., XIV, 12a; POxy, XVI, 1879; Holum, ‘‘Pulcheria’s Crusade,’’ p. 160 n. 30; PERE, HU, 1109.

Aelia Pulcheria Augusta + 95

outstanding figures, such as the prefect’s son Flavius Anthemitus Isidorus, proconsul of Asia cz. 405-10 and city prefect of Constantinople in 410-12, at the height of his father’s power.?2 Conjunction

of these two prefectures in the same family must have convinced many in the dynastic city that Theodosius was losing importance. At about the same time, Anthemius revealed independent imperial pre-

tensions, mafrying a daughter to a military man named Procopius who claimed descent from Constantine the Great.73 When Anthemius

attempted to impose such a marriage on Pulcheria he may indeed have triggered a ‘‘godly resolve’’—and also a lasting hatred for himself and his family. In the works of Socrates, of Sozomen, and of Theodoret, a third ecclesiastical historian who wrote during the reign of Theodosius I],

there is striking confirmation that Pulcheria hated Anthemius. Throughout their works all three historians stressed the theory that the emperor could secure victory and other good things for his subjects by piety alone.”4 But they differed in explaining how the East survived the perilous early years of Theodosius II. Sozomen and Theodoret found this an excellent opportunity to point out the fruits of piety, which Theodosius and his sisters practiced in exemplary fashion. It was divine cate which preserved the rule of the young emperor and restrained usurpers, so that the East remained peaceful and prosperous while the West was undergoing its greatest trials. In particular, Uldin’s invasion failed because God’s providence protected

the reigning monarch.?> Socrates, however, gave full credit to Anthemius, as was observed above. He broke with his underlying thesis to give the view of cultured circles he had encountered in his youth. At the time he wrote (not long after 439)76 men of such sympathies enjoyed the patronage of the empress Eudocia, who in 421 succeeded to first place in the palace. Thus Socrates was free to ignore Pulcheria and her sisters, whom he never mentioned by name.77 But when 72. CTh 8.17. 2-3 (= CI1. 19. 6); CTA 15. 1. 50; Keil, ‘‘Familie,” pp. 192, 196, 199-200, 202 (stemma); PERE, II, 631-33. 73. Sid. Ap. Carm, 2. 68-69: ‘‘cui prisca propago Augustis venit a proavis,"’ 94; Keil, ‘‘Familie,’’ pp. 191, 202 (stemma); PLRE, I, 742-43, ‘‘Procopius 4,’’ II, 920, ‘‘Procopius 2."’

74, Supra, Chap. 2, n. 12. 75. Soz. 9. 1. 2, 3. 3, 5. 3, 6. 1, Thdt. HE 5. 36. 2-4. 76. W. Eltester, RE, VA (1927), 894, ‘‘Sokrates Scholasticus.’’ 77. Soc. 7. 22. 4-6 attributes the court’s ascetic tinge to Theodosius himself,

acimitting only that the emperor’s sisters joined him in rising eatly to chant the ours.

96 - Theodostan Empresses

Theodoret and Sozomen composed their histories (both probably after 443),78 Eudocia had retired in disgrace and rebellion to the Holy Land, and the favor of Pulcheria might have been worth cultivating once more. As a result, both historians adopted the standard theory,

and neither so much as mentioned the great prefect Anthemius, so offensive was his name to the woman who had clashed with him in the palace thirty years earlier.79 The attitudes of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret close the circle, proving beyond reasonable doubt that Pulcheria’s vow emerged

from a threat to the independence of the dynasty, that her ‘‘godly resolve’’ had essentially political origins despite her youth. In the mext two years she went on to reassert the Theodostan house as a political force. By March, 413, Isidorus had given up the city prefecture, and Anthemtus himself is last attested April 18, 414.89 He may simply have died, but the context suggests that not long after her vow Pulcheria ordered a change of government. To replace Anthemius she recalled her mother’s associate Aurelian, although he had been living in retirement for more than a decade and was by now a very old man. Aurelian received both the praetorian prefecture of the East and the distinction patricius ®} 78. Theodoret, Kirchengeschichte, ed. L. Parmentier and F. Scheidweiler, 2nd ed. (Berlin, 1954), pp. xxv-xxvi; Sozomenus, Kirchengeschichte, ed. J. Bidez and G.C. Hansen (Berlin, 1970), pp. Ixv-Ixvii; W. Eltester, RE, VA (1927), 1240, ‘*Sozomenos.’’

79. Among others, Seeck concluded: ‘‘dass man in den Kreisen der neuen Regentin von den Verdiensten ihres Vorgingers nicht gern reden hérte,’’ Geschichte, VI (Stuttgart, 1920), 401 ad 69. 8. 80. CTA 9. 40. 22. Among others Bury, Later Roman Empire, \, 214; Zakrzewski, Parti, p. 177; and Jones, Later Roman Empire, 1, 179, believe that Anthemius died shortly after; Seeck, Geschichte, V1, 69, that Pulcheria forced him to lay down his office. There is no way of knowing. 81. For Aurelian’s second praetorian prefecture and the distinction patricius

see Jones, ‘‘Collegiate Prefectures,’’ p. 81, and PLRE, I, 129. They are recorded under December 30 in Chron. pasch. a. 414 (p. 571 Bonn): &nd AdbpnAtavod dic énapyov tev isepa@v mpaitwptov Kal nmatpixiov; in CTA 3. 12. 4, 9. 28. 2, etc.: ‘*Aureliano PPO II’’; and are at least alluded to in Amth. graec. 16. 73: OV TptoéExapyov Kal matépa Paces éxaAéoavto péyioto1. Seeck, ‘‘Studien,”’ p. 449, and (following him) von Haehling, Re/igionszugehérigkeit, pp. 82-83, identify the praetorian prefect of 414-16 with another Aurelian attested as procomsul Asiae in 395, PLRE, I, 129, ‘‘Aurelianus 4,’’ but the language of the Chron. pasch. is decisive against them. In the list of praetorian prefects of the East for 395-414 it is difficult to

find a place for the second Aurelian. The word tpioézapyos in Ath. graec. 16. 73 confirms Jones and the PLRE, because here the type of prefecture is not specified and thus the city prefecture the first Aurelian held in 393 must be counted. Cf. Monax-

Aelia Pulcheria Augusta » 97

On July 4, 414, about the time Anthemius disappeared, Theodosius proclaimed his sister Augusta.8? As usual, the literary sources do not describe the ceremony or suggest how ideologues conceived its significance, but coins from the first period of Pulcheria’s teign do indicate continuity, faithfully reproducing the types and legends of Flaccilla and Eudoxia along with the latter’s dextera Det (fig. 12).® Like her mother, Pulcheria was 2 Deo coronata, and she possessed sactal Aasileia. More clearly than that of her mother, Pulcheria’s

distinction had nothing to do with childbearing or the woman’s function but expressed in official ceremonial, costume, and icono-

graphy the paradoxical but acceptable dominion of an imperial woman. Aurelian certainly found it acceptable, as he had during the tangle of 399-400. On December 30, 414, he dedicated a portrait

bust of Pulcheria in the senate house of Constantinople; it was grouped with those of Honorius and Theodosius, her fellow Augusti.* Again official iconography assimilated the distinction of an Augusta

with that of her male counterparts. Unquestionably Pulchetia was a politician, an imperius young woman of her mother’s stamp. Sozomen assured teadets who might have found her shocking that she modestly attributed her exploits to her brother, but he also emphasized direct intervention: ‘‘she took control of the government, reaching excellent decisions and swiftly catrying them out with written instructions.’’®> From the events of 414-21 and from contemporary reaction to them, some notion can be gleaned of the content of these instructions. Like its predecessor, the Pulcheria regime apparently reached decisions with some sensitivity for the traditional avenues to influence. Aurelian himself symbolized continuity, as did his location of imperial portraiture in the senate house, a traditional /ocus for the display of prestige. Some traditionalists even applauded the demise of Anthemius. During Aurelian’s ius, city prefect twice and praetorian prefect once in the period 416-20, called tpic Enapyog yevopuevosc: Call. V. Hyp. 21. 11 (ed. Bartelink). Aurelian was perhaps seventy-five by 414, since Syn. De prov. 2. 5 (p. 123 Terzaghi) (referring to 400) calls him ynpdv.

82. Chron. pasch. a. 414 (p. 571 Bonn): TlovAyepia.. . dvnyopevun; Marcell. com. @. 414. 1 (MGH: AA, XI, 71): ‘‘Pulcheria . . . Augusta appellata est.”

9226 83. Tolstot, Monnaies, 1, 104 no. 31; Kent and Carson, Bronze, p. 90 no. 84. Chron. pasch. a. 414 (p. 571 Bonn). 85. 9. 1. 5-6; cf. similar (but tndependent) language in Philostorg. 12. 7.

98 « Theodostan Empresses

second praetorian prefecture the senate offered him the singular honor of a golden statue ‘‘for ending its distress.’’*© The nature of this ‘‘distress’’ is unclear, but a good guess is Anthemian domination of the prefectures, which other great men must have resented until the new regime brought it to an end.®? Despite this show of confidence in Aurelian, sufficient evidence exists to prove that in general Pulcheria broke with the values and traditions of the ruling class. As her ‘‘godly resolve’ reshaped life in the palace, it also produced broader innovation. The new line does

not come through clearly in legislation against heresy, for even Anthemius had devoted the resources of government to support of the dynastic faith.*8 Pulcheria’s treatment of the Jews is more revealing. Traditional policy had recognized synagogues as private property entitled to protection against the attacks of Christian fanatics. In 415

Theodosius II issued a constitution to Aurelian which for the first time forbade construction of new synagogues and in addition required the destruction of synagogues ‘‘in desert places, if it can be accomplished without riots.’’8? While not directly reversing traditional policy, this constitution was an invitation to fanatics to go about their work of intimidation and destruction. Its implications can be measured

from an outbreak that took place at about this time in Alexandria, where the new bishop Cyril led a Christian mob against the synagogues, drove the Jewish population from the city, and invited his followers to seize their property. The augustal prefect (civil governor) Orestes, recognizing that Cyril’s conduct challenged imperial authority, objected to the court in Constantinople, but Cyril also related his

version of the conflict and escaped the emperor’s anger with the somewhat lame justification that the Jews were at fault. In his account of these events Socrates attacked Cyril openly for violence and ‘‘rebel86. Anth. graec. 16. 73; cf. Alan Cameron, Porphyrius the Charioteer (Oxtord, 1973), p. 217. 87. Yet the new regime promoted the previously unknown Helio to master of offices in 414 and kept him on until 427: O. Seeck, RE, VHI (1913), 46-47, ‘Helton 2’'; PERE, ll, 533, “Helton 1.”’ 88. CTA 9. 35.7, 16. 5. 48-49, 6. 6-7, CI 1. 3. 16; cf. Zakrzewski, Partt, p. 176, calling this legislation ‘‘une concession sans doute sincére a l’esprit de son temps.’’ Thus Seeck, Geschichte, V1, 69, and W. Ensslin, RE, XXIII (1959), 1955, ‘‘Pulcheria 2,’’ are overzealous in discerning the special influence of Pulcherta be-

hind CT# 3. 12. 4 and 16. 5. 57-58 (both to Aurelian 415). Lippold, RE, suppl. XIII (1973), 1015, ‘‘Theodosius H,’’ judiciously stresses continuity. 89. CTA 16. 8. 22; contrast esp. 16. 8. 9 (393): ‘‘Iudaeorum sectam nulla lege prohibitam esse constat’’; M. Avi-Yonah, The Jews of Palestine (Oxford, 1976), pp. 208-20, 227-28.

Aelia Pulcheria Augusta + 99

lion’’ (dynasteza), language that implied harsh criticism of the regime

for not standing up to him.” Socrates went on to describe other episodes in the ‘‘truceless war’’ which raged at this time between Cyril’s followers and the local

authorities of Alexandria. Monks from the desert of Nitria abused Orestes as a ‘‘Hellene and sacrificer’’ and nearly killed him. In March

of 415 other fanatics led by a minor cleric murdered Hypatia, the Alexandrian Neoplatonist and revered teacher of Synesius.9! Socrates expressed the outrage of a traditionalist and admirer of Anthemius:

“for killings, rioting, and like conduct are utterly foreign to those who have the mind of Christ.’’% Apparently the court of Pulcheria did not agree, at least when violence contributed to the advance of Christianity. In September, 416, a legation from the Alexandrian city council approached Monaxius, Aurelian’s successor as praetorian prefect of the East, asking that Cyril’s excesses be checked. In his response the emperor denied most of the legation’s request as :zuti/ia, granting relief only from the ““terror of those called parabalani,'’ hospital attendants who served as

Cyril’s shock troops for intimidating his enemies. In the future parabalani were not to attend the council or the courts en masse, and the emperor limited their strength to five hundred, with vacancies to

be filled by the augustal prefect.93 Two years later, however, the 90. Soc. 7. 13, apparently based on the relations of Cyril and Orestes. Criticism of the court is implicit in Socrates’ words “Opéotng 5& kal mpotepov pév éuicet tv Suvactelav tov éniokdénov, Stt napynpobvto nNOADd tic EEovalas TOV ék Baottéws dpyetv tetaypévev (7. 13. 9) and in his insistence that Orestes had kept the court informed of Cyril’s conduct (7. 13. 19; cf. 14. 8). Contemporaries—at least those who agreed with Socrates—would have found the lack of imperial response unsettling. 91. Soc. 7. 14-15; cf. J.M. Rist, ‘‘Hypatia,’’ Phoemix 19 (1965), 221-25.

92. 7. 15. 6. .

93. CTA 16. 2. 42; cf. 12. 12. 15. On the parabalani cf. A. Philipsborn, ‘‘La compagnie d’ambulanciers «parabalani» d’Alexandrie,’’ Byzantion 20 (1950), 185-90. Seeck, Geschichte, VI, 404-5 ad 78. 29 (following Mommsen-Meyer and Godefroid), recognized a lacuna at the beginning of 16. 2. 42: ‘‘quia inter cetera Alexandrinae legationis inutilia hoc etiam decretis scribtum est, ut reverentissimus

episcopus de Alexandrina civitate aliquas........non exire, quod quidem tefrore eorum, qui parabalani nuncupantur, legationi insertum est.’’ Seeck proposes ‘‘etwas zugunsten des Bischofs Cyrillus,’’ but in my view the emperor would hardly have called such a provision znuti/e. I suggest a restoration like ‘‘ut r. e. de Alexandrina civitate aliquas [relationes] non [faciat] exire.’’ Apparently, the emperor

was outraged that the vatious decreta of the Alexandrian council submitted for imperial action included a particularly noxious one inhibiting Cyril. The court real-

ized, however, that terrorism had compelled the countil to act, and: that peace between the bishop and local authorities depended on limiting the political intervention of the parabalant.

100 - Theodostan Empresses

regime withdrew even this concession to the traditional ideal of law and order. In a constitution of 418 Theodosius permitted the parabalant to increase to six hundred and returned them to the control of Cyril, ‘‘whose commands and dispositions they ate to obey.’ ’% Socrates’ criticism of Pulcheria’s court applied here as well. Evidence also exists that Pulcheria btoke with her predecessor's receptiveness toward Hellenes. In 415 Aurelian received a constitution

which excluded ‘‘those polluted from the error or, rather, the crime of pagan worship’’ from the army and administration.9> Some men accused of Hellenism or tainted by excess devotion to culture probably were excluded, unless they could claim like Orestes to have received baptism from the bishop of Constantinople himself. Those who could

not would read with approval the bitter comments of Eunapius, the sophist of Sardes, the only opponent of Christianity whose opinion of Pulcheria’s regime has survived. Writing about 423, he charged that ‘in the time of Pulcheria’’ provincial governorships and offices of vicar and proconsul’ were auctioned off to the highest bidders, who then recovered their investments by brutal extortion. The praetorian prefect himself understood the system and could be bribed to deny relief to the victims—at such a price that the guilty magistrates saw their profits wasted, and their personal fortunes as well.9° Of course, venal suffragium (sale of offices) was a well-established, thoroughly Roman practice, so much so that legislation had even defined the contractual obligations of the parties involved.9? It was also an abuse, however, and offered enemies of a regime more than one point of attack.9® The sophist’s charge that under Pulcheria ‘‘the wretched 94. CTh 16. 2. 43. 95. CTA 16. 10. 21; cf. Seeck, Regesten, p. 331. Von Haehling, Refigzonszugehérigkeit, pp. 600-605, argues (correctly, in my opinion) that this was the first general exclusion of pagans from the imperial service. He also employs quantitative method to demonstrate that the law had an effect: according to his statistics, only three men attested in high office during the reign of Theodosius II (from 408) can be identified positively as pagans, all three of them magzstré meilitum! 96. Eunap. frg. 87 (FHG, IV, 52-53); cf. Paschoud, Cing études, pp. 169-75, for the fragment’s date. 97. CTA 2. 29. 1-2 (362, 394) with the discussion of W. Goffart, *‘Did Julian Combat Venal Sxzf/fragium?’’ CP 65 (1970), 145-51. Cf. Jones, Later Roman Emptre,

I, 391-96; G.E.M. de Ste. Croix, ‘‘Suffragium: From Vote to Patronage,’’ British Journal of Sociology 5 (1954), 33-48; C. Collot, ‘‘La pratique et l’institution du suffragium au Bas-Empire,’’ Revue historique de droit francais et étranger set. 4, 43 (1965), 185-221. 98. For other near-contemporary examples of such invective see Zos. 4. 28 (izfra) and Claud. In Eur. 1. 190-210, 2. 585-90; cf. Alan Cameron, Claudian, pp. 190-91.

Aelia Pulcheria Augusta + 101

decrees [of the emperors] perished with the laws’’ paralleled the criticism implicit in Socrates, but Eunapius also went further: ‘“What stands in your way, most curious fellow? Why do you not govern cities and provinces?’’ In Eunapius’ view, venal suffragium opened high office to all comers, creating among the unworthy a craving for power more deadly than the thirst-producing venom of the @psas snake.” The converse of this invective is that genuine merit, in the traditional forms of previous service, aristocracy, literary taste, and intellectual distinction, no longer guaranteed a man’s promotion ‘‘in the time of Pulcheria.’’10°

Already Pulcheria’s new directions are clear enough, but the reactions of Socrates and Eunapius should be read in the light of other evidence that is less partisan and thus more spectacular. Above all, the Pulcheria regime took seriously the emperor’s claim to be ‘‘master

of victory.’’!°! Effete, bookish, and like his father palace-bound, Theodosius II necessarily depended on reliable generals to exert the claim. Some among them were Romans—the pious and orthodox Anatolius, for example, magister militum on the eastern frontier around 420.102 By this time, however, two barbarians of Arian faith held the more prestigious commands ‘‘in the emperor’s presence.” Plinta the Goth, consul in 419, impressed Sozomen as ‘‘most potent of all around the emperor,’’ and the Alan Ardaburius, Plinta’s kinsman by marriage, founded a powerful military family which would 99. Eunap. /oc. cit. 100. This aspect of Eunapius’ invective comes through more directly in the attack on Theodosius I in Zos. 4. 28. 3 (probably based on Eunapius). In the case of Pulcheria’s regime, prosopography tends to support the charge. Only two men attested in high office-under Anthemius advanced their careers during the period 414-21: Monaxius MO 408-9, PUC 414, PPO Or 416-20; and Strategius CRP 410, PPO I// 415 (PLRE, Il, 764-65, 1033). Monaxius may have broken with Anthemtus following a bread riot in 409 (Chron. pasch., p. 571 Bonn; Marcell. com. 4. 409 [MGH: AA, XI, 70]; Keil, ‘‘Familie,’’ p. 200), while the Illyrican prefecture was not a praesental office and thus not so much an object of competition among those who hoped to influence the emperor. So far as is known, the powerful Helio (supra, n. 87) was a new man. 101. The thesis of my essay ‘*Pulcheria’s Crusade.”’ 102. Recent scholarship (e.g., PLRE, Il, 84-85, ‘‘Anatolius 10’’) has ignored

this Anatolius attested independently by Cyril. Scyth. V. Eth. 10 (TU, XLIX:2, 18-19), Movsés Xorenaci Hist. of Armenta 3. 56-59 (II, 164-67 Langlois), Procop. B. Pers. 1, 2. 11-15, and Theoph. a.m. 5921 (p. 87 de Boor). See, however, O. Seeck, RE, I (1894), 2072-73, ‘‘Anatolius 9,’’ and Holum, ‘‘Pulcheria’s Crusade,’’ pp. 156, 167-69. He may have been a relative (father?) or possibly even identical with

the Anatolius known as mag. mil. per Ortentem from ca. 437 and later as

braesentalis: Demandt, RE, suppl. XII (1970), 751-52, ‘‘Magister Militum.’’

102 » Theodostan Empresses

serve the Theodosian Jasi/eia faithfully until its extinction.!°3 Memory

of the Gainas revolt had induced Anthemius, Aurelian, and similar politicians to withdraw behind the new land walls of Constantinople and to insist that the emperors not employ such intimidating men. Through nearly two decades (401-18) no Germanic or associated barbarian name is attested among the magzstrz.1°4 But when Pulcherta

began to assert her brother’s independence, she broke with the poltticians in this respect too and returned to the traditional practice of her dynasty.

Pulcheria then put the generals to use in the interest of the dynasty. Far away in Persian Khuzestan, sometime in 419 or early 420, a Christian bishop destroyed a fire-altar of the Zoroastrian state

religion, forcing Yazdgard I to execute him and those of his coreligionists who chose to remain defiant. When the king died late in 420, his son and successor Vahram V intensified the attack, breaking completely with Yazdgard’s conciliatory policy.1°> The Romans responded quickly and with even greater fanaticism. War was already in

the air months before Yazdgard’s death, by May, 420, when the emperor ordered property-holders in border provinces to fortify their estates in case of a Persian invasion.!°° When refugees from the per-

secution appeared in Constantinople ‘soon afterward to plead that their sufferings not be ignored, they found the court, in the words of Socrates, “‘ready to do anything for the sake of Christianity.’’}°7 In 421 Roman troops undertook a major two-pronged offensive. Theodosius ordered Anatolius northward to support a revolt in Persian

Armenia. At the same time Ardaburius, who had led his praesental army from Europe to the Mesopotamian frontier, struck plundering into enemy territory and besieged Nistbis, a major Persian stronghold.!°® When Vahram had been sufficiently chastized, hardheaded generals must have reasoned, diplomats could take over and negotiate 103. W. Ensslin, RE, XXI (1951), 457-58, “‘Plinta’’; O. Seeck, RE, II (1896), 606-7, ‘‘Ardabur 1’; Demande, RE, suppl. XII (1970), 746-48, **Magister Millttum’’; also Soz. 7. 17. 35 on Plinta’s influence, and for his kinship with Ardaburius the so-called Silver Shield of Aspar, Delbrueck, Konsulardiptychen, pp. 154-56 no. 35. 104. Lippold, RE, suppl. XIII (1973), 1014, ‘‘Theodostus II,’’ observes the re-

emergence of Germans and related barbarians under Theodosius II but incorrectly traces it back to 410. Cf. supra, Chap. 2, n. 79. 105. Holum, ‘‘Pulcheria’s Crusade,’’ pp. 155-56. 106. C18. 10. 10. 107. 7. 18. 7. 108. Movsés Xorenagi Hist. of Armenia 3.59 (II, 166-67 Langlois), Soc. 7. 18. 9-15, 19-20, Holum, ‘‘Pulcheria’s Crusade,’’ pp. 162-63, 167-68.

Aeha Pulcheria Augusta + 103

a halt to the persecution. The emperor’s ability to secure victory would be vindicated.

Sometime in 420 or early 421199 the court set in motion a sequence of events that paralleled the efforts of the hardheaded generals. As Eunapius might have objected, it ‘‘belittled the emperor’s courage, the strength of his troops, and the conditions of real battle.’’11° The chronicler Theophanes Confessor (ninth century) presetved a citcumstantial narrative: Under the influence of the blessed Pulcheria, the pious Theodosius sent a rich donation to the archbishop of Jerusalem for distribution to the needy,

and also a golden cross studded with precious stones to be erected on Golgotha. In exchange for these gifts, the archbishop dispatched relics of the right arm of Stephen Protomartyr, in the care of St. Passarion. When this man had reached Chalcedon, in that very night the blessed Pulcheria saw St. Stephen in a vision saying to her: ‘‘Behold, your prayer has been heard and your desire has come to pass, for I have arrived in Chalcedon.’’ And she arose taking her brother with her and went to greet the holy relics. Receiving them into the palace, she founded a splendid chapel for the holy Protomartyr, and in it she deposited the holy relics.11!

The narrative fits neatly into its context. As a contemporaty inventio

Marfrative reveals, the bones of St. Stephen had appeared outside Jerusalem in December, 415, and had come under the control of the bishop.1!2 Naturally, gifts were required to inspire his generosity, and

Passarion, a prominent ascetic of episcopal rank,!13 was a natural choice to escort the holy treasure. The date of the court’s request, five yeats or so after the bones first came to light, was more than coinci-

dental. As Roman armies matched to their positions, the court did well to procure the alliance of the saint whose very name (Stephanos) promised the victor’s crown.!"4 In like manner Theodosius the Great had rallied St. John the Baptist for the Frigidus campaign, and thus the emperor Leo I a generation later would seek translation to Con109. Holum, ‘‘Pulcheria’s Crusade,”’ p. 163 n. 46, for the correct date. 110. Supra, p. 51. 111. Theoph. 4.2. 5920 (pp. 86-87 de Boor). 112. S. Vanderlinden, ‘‘Revelatio Sancti Stephani (BHL 7850-6),’’ Revue des études byzantines 4 (1946), 178-217. 113. F. Delmas, ‘‘Saint Passarion,’* EO 3 (1900), 162-63. 114. E.g., Proclus Or. 17. 2 (PG, LXV, 809) spoken the day after Christmas: Es étéExU, Kal onpepov adto LtéEpavos npoonvexdn: XTEPAVOG, 6 PEPOVUOLOS

wdptuc Lteavos, 6 Euwoyos otépavoc Ltégavos, 16 adténAEKtov S1ddynpe’ XTEPAVOS, TO adtTOXGAKEvTOV nEpivepa; cf. Gagé, “XTAYPOL NIKOMOIOZ,”’

p. 381.

104 » Theodostan Empresses

stantinople of the corpse of Simeon Stylites, so that ‘‘by his prayers”’ the pillar saint could guard the Jasi/eig.1'> ‘‘Living and present’’ like

the prophet Samuel, St. Stephen would intercede with the divine protector and help the emperor's armies defeat Persta. Correct so far as it goes, this interpretation is incomplete and therefore misleading. Like the prophet Samuel, St. Stephen arrived in Chalcedon with his episcopal escort. When he reached the urban shore, perhaps crowds of the faithful thronged in like manner to celebrate his ad¢ventus. But, if so, Theophanes consigned these joyous faithful to oblivion, a striking omission which calls for an explanation. Read in the light of contemporary ad@ventus ceremonial, it indicates that this was not a normal adventus like that of Samuel but a highly unusual one which finds its closest parallel in a visual document, in

the well-known Translation of Relics Ivory of the Trier Cathedral Treasure (fig. 15). The object itself is controversial. Art historians do not agree on its provenance or on the date of its manufacture. Again, the most fruitful method of interpretation is to read its iconography in the light of ad@ventus ceremonial. This procedure reveals sufficient convergence with the Theophanes a¢@ventus to permit the conclusion

that text and ivory narrate the same event.!!6 The Trier cortege enters the scene from the left. On a decorated imperial wagon two figures in episcopal garb somewhat possessively hold St. Stephen’s right arm, contained in a gabled box. Although two stocky mules still draw the wagon vigorously to the right, the head of the procession has already reached its destination. Leading tt is the emperor, wearing the diadem and the pa/udamentum secuted on his right shoulder with a jeweled imperial fi4u/¢. High officials flank him, similarly clad in the paludamentum but with less elaborate fibulae. Like Theodosius these officials carry large candles, part of the expected apparatus of adventus ceremonial. As in the adventus of Samuel, the presence of the emperor and high officials leaves an impression of social order. 115. V. Syme. syr. 136 (TU, XOCKH: 4, 179).

116. For complete discussion see K. Holum and G. Vikan, ‘‘The Trier Ivory, Adventus Ceremonial, and the Relics of St. Stephen,’’ DOP 33 (1979), 113-33. See also J. Wortley, ‘‘The Trier Ivory Reconsidered,’’ GRBS 21 (1980), 381-94, responding to Holum and Vikan with the view that the translation recorded by the Trier Ivory was ‘‘a fictitious event’’ for which ‘‘the earliest and almost the only evidence . . . 1s the testimony of Theophanes’’ (p. 382). Unfortunately, Wortley has ignored the St.

Stephen encomium quoted i#/ra (and in Holum and Vikan, p. 131). This text permits no reasonable doubt that the translation in question was historical.

“8, " , . Se a . yan Beni oor , iy ltsass PS Sager eg ee bee DET So COR a ae BB: CERT ROE. . i aha ee Geer re ae > gl lel Saea ee Se. ee ee, sae Bae 2 eee 3 ee A ae pi ay, ta RR ee ee can leaden cereeoceteapictan Cae roe Pee ee ERE

~ SERS, Ue Se oats otal aera, SSS PNG HRS ERNE. Si SOS OA esc cetceletatatet tetera etiner tape hd SERRE

iene omy ¢ 3 ‘Raita aeRE eet, : Co* lle PNca ata.DOE Seer ee,iy>28, had me+ SRN an, SER MeeaRGD pia” . Ee- Se rah i a Lien Se Seis Saker”! saad : es, Sere Ati SE aes Sh ona F Fee as oe Magen) . “ ROOW he or oe ws Lae eis *“ Ea A ae AN Qo

: yy a eg Ne Mehit” YY “eee ae %, pe eeOP oe aeae™ eae-=: .Bia... aah, leer ae Wig, Re

eat F I 2 “Soe ae minted

Icheri Solidus of Pulcheria, inople 414-ca.414-ca. 420 (2X . Constantinople

2BP Soe ay . +ct:hESC, spectetoe tela cs =, ah, Agi ERE gre s Gteo” Sy zi +o SO. Br Ee ae ' , _+ See oPone, ad Pee * : Perse ake RearonsosBEae _ sega sant ar >.Ny ae SONG SRN ONES Pasoaaeas &

ALAR ah rine Pima ee itches BO - cide nice nena Nee Se ee oh & xROR ‘soe ree aacS ; :eS & ry, = *y PATS a ae on e: oo : “ re F sae. 2 Ss 2 pee 2! Bes oe . ams ve 8 5 & “3S $$ 33 to: & ‘i, .: *¢° SERN aaa ts +. Ses Se RS * Bey nN . * . ee z Tos? 2 oo ‘ SSR *, i>” Bae ad "233 “Sk $ RRR TS : SS & . FF ¥ . 3S eee + aga j aoe . Bees SS R dees ts wR ee ot Ss oy : “SONNE SSE _ oseefe %toes ete, Bees Prepon SEER: : 2 eS: of &wel Reece Re. Fy ae aes RY ws s. ¢=>ah ‘ roo Pe Sor Re | Sok“ Shrasnaneree RA Nerenanencns 3aS > SSR EE Rae RSE ease oe Saw Ss Stat te as racatetars tenuate SEONG jhe TS >Sie AN Se, cs SSS

OOO Seger See areasaoe tte POOR a keeS R Rah enon SOE NER ERE «teSr.".RGN Stay wac. z¢SE eee +.: Sad MN we=EEE SEES Sho BS a oY Cae Zs " Fnese Pea . *AR as, Soe See BSS * ‘ees $ Fo%a: “33 §Cae ; toset Pees$Fe eee -eS S°ehaies SERRE Dae aa ll?yOA TRRDSee S Boe Pes, SR Se|S&ne SSR OT SEESSES a SS ?. gSo TER Ree Se TS SR. Sec oS Se Se = SS : FNS SSS . oleae gon” BE SS 3 Sa EES er SRR Se, S Foss: F = 8 SENS RSS “ Soe soe *sete See EeeeaS erfnSea an SEAS PES >Sees 3, é3Sete $Bes BS.SSS EARS . 7 SSE Sot, Seei +B . anon ha Se sree eater SeteSES SEIS oeataletotesettarers SSR SOSSEN : ay SERS seh he .SG = Birnie sa ees RES Seas osSe eee TateSEE RR oes "eS * SES sSe “ng at Sees Recon Jk SS 23“3 3 SES EES SS SS . SORE SAmass “nnn =" See SES eeSESee +SS SSeS BK VN efERR maser oa *cies eane Coe es sSe SRC x2aANE eigenstate! xSEER SURE Taare, eae SEES .at:7ree arSPE spy anenmee nena SS 2 ae Se SF y 2 RSS RE 3 ESS SENS 2 x ee Se Se po oe eS ‘S$ 38 Smee Ry ieee Nea “ ESSE * Re REewe. See“>ak ‘ Sar ” phen “tn mo :: Set aR SEES a SEE xSt ru*eee :. SORES » Spee ee eeae SSane ee sBR SRSGN oh See asec + SSS Se. nn ESE ee“2s eee SES= “oat why ae OE: SNe ae Rice Sosa SSB eee S Sa -* *" S Seeeee BESS SS LENT Se Seas Seats: Sen oe $3 eS i 3 S28 eee SESes

eo eS : :3 oe ete. SS eS es bot Se TS As S

SS Sear SS eee BBS Eost EEE ee: SS SOROS Lee eeoe gE> SRN * eeeoe SST SSS = Rs ty S:2sot SeAy : ES Ss ::ar \.- /SR * esSe ‘ sSe SESS ee rN Reon VFa ,See eS, 3 Py So ebeetkanens . Saas Soe Shine, Fn_ .=:Re =* Srins DoS I . *3° - Ss + "Wee NS ¥2os Bie Soe See ae PR Baewo. 2. eae t: Bh BR FSSRS, eeeeee Sak S See go. eS Se % 5 RRS 3 sae SNR SARE Re Se oh :BS 3 =Seumececeaee w ania ag + AR=ee $ 5%$SS 4,: ae : +Se SS Bee Sen shismchnenns Rt Se is mS ek% oe .Re a we Stateresataratacernet Pu ft SS A Bo "she SE sae ES Sag Ee ae § 3 : SNS SSS TS ed “J‘ES SSE ee: *%2>ai*po {ees ‘me ame eT *sSee RN FREES SN eS= eo Be ™ EES aRE Rene Rees ed SSS 3 sSTR SES Sees .-Se &, >ae >,SAS *pe} %2Be ERS oes * See Se SR F Sone iS. 35 x= |S 6S SAS oo Re, = & HN 2 SS St Se aeee 2: a Speer . 3 s ‘, E Se 2S 5 Ree ae :be Soe as"=dant as ooh SES Se eee “dSeiten & Sa CD ROSS eee ==~ a.23‘OSS ~3 .See &Sections RSE *-#“See By ‘$353 SS BR SRE hs“s>ott FR SIRS SRR. mee Os : . een a Ba, Sat Soe 4! “ Ss nema N nes co ae Sue ee % 7 BN SOT} Se ot +; Sse. ee 3S “RRS iste ats ee acne eS FBS s Sete AS eee * Sa ee * . oN . ® SS =

Seer ee Rese ‘ BsRireonatet RAa,pe Ry ace: Sees * rot t SR5Rassn Set =aS ee 'Bie eSftSEAS, Stone “Sead . Se: 1 Haar’ Ros es Ree eas ‘eae *aonce SERN SERN ‘. 3an Eeitns, ee '2 SS TSE a, “See i. ee aS. SS * 33—_ * PON Sta= a.Seay Se Soy eo) 1 4x3 eeRe Banc itaSe SER. SEae Se OS : .: St &. =aSe 3Seay SSS

% , ae as a Soe Se ae CI So. > RS SS

a ' ¥"hag Siliake“nena = eS e SN. BRSSee Soe, Bese : os:SSR. g Sy SS Sean YS EE ,eoRt ¥'SREP =oeee **O Se aSee SF 3 SSo . Se RS soe Sees /32RN Sie SES EA Pes Gf Si HES Ree Ss aN 7“hk dh BS. TS st state oooh ah RS S "st ¥ Se ¥) So es 3 33 ce sy ny Se eR shee REREAD. Athasee oe ‘ < Se $3 Be. GR ee as : span SE SSS “= SE 1 & Skeeter tetente sate PS Re Sete Soe ESS % Se Tk 8 eS “™ 1d 3° Se Bie, Se Seneca Nose . Pctetatetate ? % ay SCS A % . bY Ltn + IS SNR a * pees SER " Se a> Ses ~ Sete SSR eS, en SOS IN Se Ee SES ae SUAS oa 5 Bh SNS Se Sess: = a an BOR ee ccs bY aS ee SRS ee SO NS SN, "SS SES Ee NS “3 Seon oe © See se So oa eg ae a SRE Ses : Spee Sass SESS,

3 ° oe ’ ef ys Seen, Se Se Se! Sik S Sess “SS TSS Ras Se aan Se SR SS RS S * Soe Sa ;MR eae conte arenes $“E Soha Rees SeSes 23ad vey anShSen See FE ySe =SSet Soo =Rapa ~RES Sees oS en SrSS Ro” SIN ay | oers |. *:Sees Rd. Es Aces Pes RRO aee SRO ages ot ~ RS.m4 aSs RS, TE Phoiconsbeennennetnetn ¥ Saas Shoes Se Soieuenomaene eet a3. Sa ‘SRS Sn STE ys EE ws SEN SSeS -.Eitan, #3 ae hy S Retainers CEES CRS CSPoe i sniiieteectet ate x ie 3 2 SES Ray satiny feeSe CamBR, . aes e DSS ERE eens 7S R "% Sees, Rar eR Pee * We-S5 os GE Th Se Sak, SERS SEER REN=\9o .7% & ..é' eonrlicernernetfees aso3} Sees&. Renesas Eee Be See poe . .. SS Si°out Seite es : =+3ORS 3 Sabet saeNk Ree Ra Bh Be SSeeonaaee w SS pat eS Ra ‘S$ TRS SSE i| rh Fa pv, BEE eR eens z xeee SE Bets SN Sees x:ae WSS RS *aMBhessasoonnngee *SeDES a bRenn Satta .SEE YSBS SSR Sih, RS Ss, RS telat es St a voy aetatetetet aotcras BSE =BR Soares RS SNe = SSA Ra >enSS < Se SOS, egBeen Soe b "Raaearonen coment Some “ay ERS : % Sa Sones SV PSY. ‘*ENR stsae Bie, eas . Ray gS SEER RR SRE Rees - SEES .SE. SSNS Se BRS Se3:+RS RS N3 -, Re eS bd ser ‘“Sa es ae = ~ EES sS\N . SSR RS a Stee SR sett BS SESE eS ket SS . &'S ee SS RES eas as BES y See 4iFRN £ Seay So eaes = Ses ee Rs.: aget SERS AS SERRE seerson oe ees Se SSSR ECA3 “Baas ?Ag Beaet.trn Nee SES awed iy Soo ye Sh Sa S rr a= Set - a:Ses YY * *SS RR ee= = ee!SRES * “; oS Bain yt wkSN Re . m3 Sa SRS SRNSSa Sage ee Sqs BS »., sagt. ASTSoS s “ ane 3 ms®& . SRE ReSeema. ; : Sy : | Fd 3BR SSeS = 2“|.sPES ReneS : Sees S85 See SS- heeunne aa & odkes “Se.+ ghresapasep OS. > *RSe F tone REE. Mag , stig 3e8 eee” Stress na Se : Sea : mt we+SAN hanee Rate

. et *“+SS Stes+B a . 2a een woof. aE, *? ae os SSE sty eaontheeertons 4s yet agSORES ~ SS RO SS eee !’ eh SSTSR Boss Bea.- *+O Te 3 2 eee . Se x ae. % Sa. 4 cs

"oat, NN any -~ Seetek Sern ee Spee oer » . Rie SS es Seg ISS Ss. & ait nanineneeee REN : “Sk Sak eeSe #Rs .:. Seo Seon .RE pe Se SR RN XSRSS See SRE ee RES SSE ENN :oQ iDRS. Foe tSE fey :SN Se *,Seni seats: SS iPe wa aeos BF SS eR SS ma > ede ’Bo, :Cee ROR be Se =‘Se Ae FR RR See RS SN be my * 34w, WA Sone Pema GeSee Sihsb Bane TS TR- si * ESS SN SRS S. w RF. eae eS ~"eo SeaeRe 7 Re Saae ee= egSEO Sonpeeeinis San eter: eS Ts. SoBe aahae wet Fs : > ESS See “3 xt Scie 16 aSresseee SRR a ~. ee . % Ss . S33 FS 3 = BEEN Eh SES e ESOS Sg See 5 oR Seth. > TY ha NOR SS “The Sar SS Ss © See ee SL SBS ens: SR SR Ae cr earerta rete & . Sen Sa pose . N REE, eS SS+RN EN a = __ ahsSe WN %Sopreet sei eeSf. .ae — ee“ > =— ee QARAAIARRA “Ateam . >| PERE ye on See + Soot ok ce ae REE aSESE - ee)ae aSSS RRS Ree|onsen “ASS ‘ae * Res e aon x “ations oe . ce se . . RESIN =n aS Be . a Danes 3 aa ~ ee cate WArere ex Shh ose eea oe: Soe .
SSeR RS SSom : UO ge ce sCRS ¢eyBae Maes = +Bae eeSToerO SESE ~SE NGS S: wo= ee as Re went Pac ER ean es eS SANS N SREY Beas occ oSahSeSioa oe cena es 7S 5 Poste eSSeed 3 Sas See cae:*SSS SSS “Bros 2 By -?* SkeSansa She mee aE SS Brcko “yaarSe eae ‘= 3sSEES ha a ekeR A ee an (EES us* te at ceteatetetatete: . Shaw waeae t. ae Matos Scorned SS Bete as . ES . Reef 73 . m- re eS o3=Pos >ntetace 2seen EEE 3 .& n Se eRe eae Be Se "3. Sore ‘weBORER “=ees Ry Ee Bers ees SySS ee ofSaaa °SeeR Bichocen SoS = . |ee 1 +“‘RE “grrr aga “= se AS SESS TE 8SRR ot ¥ _gohecoeets eo Roa aSSa3ES SSS ., “Se g< oes Sse eee, Re goeecenanats =SR eS oS8Se er age oe eewaving Bares age oaBs Sian. Seeeoonons eS teeae BER 3SERS *= PSS, osFs BS ee SR >> ..3otSR SES Sess eaees SS SSSR *Bons vs EE SS meets Ee aRae » so s 3* og *3tsae &s8eee PNSSR 5. «~~ .See *— SAS oS eee :meeeio eee Sea er :x= as .Yoon RS pattern wo Rag Pe goo | ue 3 Ss zs 3. 26s A = Se . ~ 8 Be, sthorenery re at 2 & Ss 2 Se ~ epiton es Sas eee ~ Red aaah S Recs Sa &te ~R eg z RES SN ¥MS SK ok RACE eens eS Ree Sean , v7, i & AR. ee SS Ss SSR SES WA Speer BS * SBR. Sekeenese an Yoo ‘ SPOR a SS SR SSS Se Ss ee«*Sees eeEES be, SeBe 3)Noa SaeeeeS sae ‘ Tey eae, +~we YS Sa .” gsSaree ae 3Cn See =:Si) 6ee. oo, eee “otaeef », ¢ke Hi os Sous Reece odeeee Seigueaeens Seog epee HenSee L ARC Re TE SEES 3.eet By -y” See > Rasta Ss 7Sees. * 3 ete, . .:Ree Bee aca o ' SEES CASE * poston as SB yee Pa Se SS x % 33 SENS Wes aeSS SSSoa eeeae ee Sse + See »REte = See :eeRe LS CSE eS eeenone = oe SOS Be as SeSass Steen, So, +3seae a| Bs eeSp .Seg 2RS §aRe PERSON =ee SSeS saat : Een ;“Ss Se ee RLS S .EON : Se oases OOO eet RN SS H :RR Sane Sota " 2SS Ess EROS, EE RNG . 2*Teneetatetatst See BS Sehet ee aeSeseer SR os . RR ytWwRearen Pe en 33 .% 3 Fhe oS Sees Se eS i. Racca < ese wee 4 Shara ESS Roe aN a, SOR RRA Ra ea AS i ae SeeSS cee 24d Rasnees SRG f -Bae, ; paren SSeS “s >‘ 3eee. Sees 5 FF: ae Fo ne ogetoaeeenece aa SES MeSN oN < Fea a—_ a -RARE EES x 3aR es bate ~ 3 ke S SCRE ee ae Se : Seen, CEN, ¥aTREE % oe RRS a +5 FSR. mw, ns B . Se : x SF Soe eR % eR Soe eS ie ve Ss : “\S 2 Ser or : 3 SSS ads SSS: SS ES : cfSee pex Bee? eeeSiBese. s* SSSen OS Re RO ¢Re Geenoe * 8 Se Ata sy pone oeaa3SS ee Bey SS te Se Staion a % P29 :seem "33 *t Semen Rs. SEN See reae EESa t*=Ses nn > SEER"sy Bie +sts=:See ae es qo sae =a: RR wo reas aa ER: SS SaaS. SEES etdowt ae xSe. SSAas%.-Se 5“3Shoat aneRR Sennen Dee ae ROB th ee SS 3»aaaihee . ee oe SSSE SR US oe ae, Soe Saas ae : = oo RUSE | i Saachaa Sy* ee WS eSayBORE SeENS PE oS. Sees ; ie: ws es See SRE ae Se aN Sage oe ST &G chaise Sees, 5, eS = . Bs.

oa eee x See “SS ty:. TOs Seas aFees «+ Se eN ee SS SS eeegE « SON SoS % ;See ; reaetxEe BS as ES eaten eeER eS 2,© ySee Beer eee Beers ce SESS as Saha oe > Be eae Sees Saran RESoe Sassy pattern Sieusec Se ” Ses : Se=xs eesSS eSSe eeSoe : ts Ste Serene y *wh 3 Sree Se bsSeSoe Nghe eins.ee

Biers, Se haa SEE anata Reirnesncsastien. FS Rae Sa. SSR OO: . San Geraci, 2. SBaeeepS SS “:. Dermrernnedenete Ss Raat et ee Sate ae-: See .SE SEN *’ OE ritermeprieeeaneam eR CAA “ os See San , &a — SesmeSeae© SOREN 33 he me Xe BS se {eS Ss sageneubecentctesnonees Ses eps eSSee . es St ah Kosieveeinis sricee SS.% ee, , NSS Sinead hanna

aearerree weet Ng es,aoesee OS GE ooSERS Seen a EA = REN, “ SR Baissea 4ieee een Se UN Sensis Sk =Petron NS Se osSta SS M partes inte SianNas RaotsSpeen oe SeEN So = ; 3= Se = ‘ See ane an Se NeSas an Sear UE Seeashood esas enseo .* Sete, ee FERRE Ls Sy Bs Sema eS Be SeSa SR CoRR SE oe etBREE “3 OS Restaccae” | RR en pig 4‘" SLR SS, eh ohana eee See Se enero nna SCE ESSo: ERAS Pratt gtens EEE ERE2RSaoN Soren Recent er : =boseee Se Nas ae ewes keaton a SP eos RS SR enaresRARE eSSeas Rance as,aeNS the e:* Kaan sat cd . ae eee ERS >, RRS SIaeRiongoehines: Ss a be: SENSES ts PRES > ogee x * Bese ett % wd Qe Ree aS Ba Se > 5 EE SAE “ 7 SRT RAEE ‘ a“SorSt3eo aa Sa, es. oe PS a.PANES. HOS ONS SEES Rea preity25, on NaS EPS 2 SS a Ne SEEN ot Sea SESS ae ee aces SE RENN SN SERRA mg PSone, aeSER ae. ERR ee Sa he eee see vapneee .s' sihineceaeearenny “3 SERICSS aea SO \ sa RRA EREECTS '. aaheeninianannntancnn nest So see *nSpence Sikes ‘ S8ahh stare acu ingae ES eae SSR SN CE ey :AL BORE ROR Nea en es SER os SRC SS Ban Ge eee ns Rav ANAS RRRRRS

Sa ee NSPipoeee: oe See¥ Ss SRRRS a eeRRR ay es. Bas, BR . SiS RES SeatS55 sc Sa,

Aeha Pulcheria Augusta » 107

But the Trier Ivory parallels Theophanes in omitting the joyous ctowds who normally greeted the arrival of relics in Constantinople. The figures that populate the architectural curtain in the background

observe instead the etiquette of the court. Some stand at wooden attention, others cense the procession before them and chant the usual acclamations to honor the imperial presence and the saint.!!7 These figures lend the scene a pervasive courtly atmosphere and invite the viewer to associate the architecture itself with the imperial palace

—a three-story arcade surrounding an interior court, or perhaps a structure along the mzesé where it approached the palace complex. In the interests of effective design the artist may have sacrificed precise architectural relationships; thus, the imposing portal at the left with its lunette icon of Christ may comfortably be identified with the Chalke gate.118

The most obtrusive parallel between the Trier Ivory and the Theophanes text is common focus on the pious acts of the empress. In

Theophanes the emperor initiates the transaction, but does so ‘“under the influence of the blessed Pulcheria.’’ On the Ivory Theodosius wears distinctive costume and inclines slightly forward, but

essentially he remains only part of the cortege and thus of the ceremonial context. The direction of the wagon’s movement and the posture and gaze of other participants direct the viewer's attention

inexorably toward the scene at the right, toward the diminutive woman clothed in the rich costume of an Augusta.!!9 As in Theo-

phanes, Pulcheria has founded a chapel in the palace complex. Workmen on its superstructure apply the finishing touches, showing by their feverish activity that they have constructed it at her command especially to receive these relics. The dramatic moment has arrived. ‘Receiving them into the palace,’’ Theophanes concluded, ‘*. . . in it she deposited the holy relics.’’ With the gesture of the Augusta’s right hand, the Ivory achieves a clarity of expression unavailable in the colorless narrative of the chronicler. The palace is Pulcheria’s: 117. The hand-to-ear gesture of the figures in the second register indicates singing: A. Hermann, ‘‘Mit der Hand Singen,’’ JAC 1 (1958), 105-8. 118. Mango, Brazen House, p. 104, refrained from using the Trier Ivory as evidence for the Chalke because of uncertain ‘‘origin, date, and subject matter.’’ At least some uncertainties have now been removed. 119. The diadem of this Augusta does not correspond closely with those from late fourth- to early fifth-century coins and full-plastic portraiture (e.g., figs. 5-7, 9, 11-14, 19), indicating that the Ivory was created a century or so later with updated costume. See infra, n. 125.

108 »« Theodosian Empresses

home and into it she ts welcoming the saint, to a permanent abode with her in the haunts of basileia. The force of Pulcheria’s gesture could emerge with equal transparency in evocative verbal language: év Baciielois oté~avoc: éVaAdpEvoE yup adtov F PaotAic Kal napVévoc. Stephen / the victory crown is in the palace, for the virgin empress has brought

him into her bride-chamber.'2°

From an encomium of St. Stephen spoken only a few years after his translation, these words prove that in the eyes of contemporaries, as for the carver of the Trier Ivory, the saint’s ad@ventus brought him into

a dynamic and intimate union with Pulcheria.

The conclusion to be drawn from both Theophanes and the Trier Ivory is that St. Stephen arrived in Constantinople in principle to intercede not for Theodosius but for Pulcheria herself. Since the translation may comfortably be associated with the Persian war, an additional conclusion likewise seems justified, that Pulcheria conceived the war to be a test and confirmation of her own ability to inspire victory. She could claim that ability, to judge from the Trier Ivory, for its iconography includes one element which has yet to be explained. As she extends her right arm to receive St. Stephen, Pulcheria cradles in her left a long, crudely fashioned cross. This object makes good sense

as part of the apparatus of adventus ceremonial, like the candles of the emperor and officials or the chanting and incense which greeted the procession. When Bishop Porphyry returned to Gaza in 402, for example, the faithful came to meet him ‘‘carrying the sign of the precious cross . . . and singing hymns.’’!21 But this interpretation does not explain why Pulcherta alone should hold the cross. It may indeed honor St. Stephen, but, more importantly, this cross draws attention to the empress, to a personal quality that sets her off from the other persons in the tableau. As ts well known, the cross was the most potent victory symbol available in

the vocabulary of Christian art, evoking the victory of Christ on Golgotha over death, the devil, and the enemies of faith.!22 Thus it was an appropriate instrument with which to honor the adventus of a 120. PG, LXIII, 933; cf. Leroy, Homilétique, p. 158, identifying the text as a work of Proclus of Constantinople. 121. Marc. Diac. V. Porph. 58 (ed. Grégoire-Kugener). 122. For references see Holum, ‘‘Pulcheria’s Crusade,’’ p. 164 n. 49.

Aelia Pulcheria Augusta + 109

holy man or of the relics of St. Stephen, whose martyrdom repeated

the victory of Christ and proved that it was a living and present reality.!23 The cross applied equally to Pulcheria, for she too repeated Christ’s victory on Golgotha: in her ‘‘godly resolve,’’ in ‘‘devoting

her virginity to Christ’’—thus depriving herself of the benefits of childbearing —in ‘‘exhausting her wealth by pious works and making her body dead to its passions.’’!24 Pulcheria’s ascetic achievement

contained the promise that the Roman armies would defeat Persia. This was her claim to inspire victory, and this she put to the test in 421. The court’s alacrity in attacking Persia has been explored thus far

only from literary evidence and from an art object of apparently liturgical character.!2> It is therefore gratifying to discover the same

themes in contemporary productions of official propaganda. The Theophanes text already confirms imperial preoccupation with Christian victory symbolism. Like the cross of the Ivory, the “‘golden cross

studded with precious stones’’ Theodosius erected on Golgotha ‘tunder Pulcheria’s influence’’ evoked Christ’s victory and suggested that it would be repeated in imperial victory over present enemies of faith. At roughly the same time (ca. 420-22) the mint of Constantinople initiated a new solidus type with the same victory symbolism (fig. 13):126 Reverse. VOTXX MVLTXXX Victory standing left, holding a long jeweled cross. CONOB in the exergue.

Struck to celebrate the twentieth anniversary of Theodosius’ elevation (hence VOTXX MVLTXXX), these coins reveal two significant innovations. For the first time numismatic art, the most conservative medium of official propaganda, presented a patently Christian expla-

nation for imperial victory, one which, like the adventus of St. Stephen and official response to the defeat of Gainas in 400, openly 123. See esp. Basil of Seleucia Or. 41 (PG, LXXXV, 472), declaring that the cross rightly adorns St. Stephen because it ‘‘firmed him up’’ for his own passion:

vevphous tig aijs npovuptas ta aicodntHpia. 124. Proclus Or. 12. 1 (PG, LXV, 788), paralleling the ascetic achievement of Pulcheria with the martyrdom of St. Stephen, quoted in full zz/ra, pp. 137-38. 125. The Trier Ivory may well have decorated one side of a relic box, serving to authenticate the relics contained within by tracing visually the history of their translation. Leroy, Homilétique, p. 158, believes that Proclus Or. 12. 1 refers to mosaic decorations of Pulcheria’s palatine chapel, a likely source of the iconography of the Trier Ivory.

126. For full discussion see Holum, ‘‘Pulcheria’s Crusade,’’ pp. 153-57, 165-67.

110 » Theodostan Empresses

belittled the emperor's strength and the efforts of hardheaded generals. For the first time also, coin designers abandoned the traditional distinction, expressed through distinct reverse types, between male and female holders of Jasi/eia. The Long-Cross solidi appeared with identical reverses from the mint of Constantinople and with obverses of Theodosius II, of his western colleague Honorius, and of Pulcheria. Like Aurelian’s dedication of portrait busts in the senate house, these

coins assimilated the Augusta with her male counterparts. Like the cross of the Trier Ivory, they declared that a woman might claim to be ‘‘master of victory.’’ Within a few years after the Romans invaded Persia in 421, the

court ordered its architects to raise a new victory column at the Hebdomon, a primary /ocus of victory propaganda, where the armies

paraded ceremonially before setting out for battle. A monolithic granite column approximately seventeen metets in height supported a statue of Theodosius II, probably equestrian. The statue has perished, but excavations turned up fragments of its base now preserved in the Archeological Museum, Istanbul:!27 D(ominus) N(oster) Theodo{sius pius felix August]us Imperator et [fortissimus triumfato]r [gentium barbararum, pere]nnis [et ubiqu]e [victor, pro} votis sorotum, pacato forbe romJano celsus exultat

Although the surviving letters do.not demand them, the excellent restorations of R. Demangel, drawn mainly from contemporary coinage, permit an attempt at translation: Our lord, the gracious and fortunate Theodosius Augustus Commander-in-chief, very mighty, triumphant Over barbarian nations, always and everywhere Victor, through the vows of his sisters, having pacified The Roman world, rejoices on high

Even without Demangel’s restorations the sense would come through clearly enough. Theodosius has won military victories bringing peace to the Empire. Surviving letters identify the source of that victory —

[through] the vows of his sisters.’’ The nature of these ‘‘vows’” is not specified, but the inscription should be read with the Trier Ivory cross in mind and in the light of Sozomen’s contemporary interpre127. Demangel, Coxtribution, pp. 33-43; cf. B. Croke, ‘Evidence for the Hun Invasion of Thrace in A.D. 422,’’ GRBS 18 (1977), 365-66, associating the victory column (like Demangel) with the events of 421-22.

Aelia Pulcheria Augusta + 111

tation. In his view, when Pulcheria devoted her virginity to God and imposed the same vow on her sisters, she secured God’s favor, causing

‘every threat and war raised against her brother to disperse spontaneously.’’!28 More impressively than in propaganda response to the events of 400, ‘‘in the time of Pulcheria’’ the longstanding dichotomy between the official ideology of imperial victory and Christian reaction to the same phenomenon was made to evaporate.

Diverse strands of evidence and interpretation may now be drawn tightly together. During the minority of Theodosius II the military and religious foundations of Theodosian Jast/eia nearly gave way before an assault of civilians and politicians, traditionalists who placed their confidence in the genius of Anthemius. Pulcheria recognized the threat, responded with her ‘‘godly resolve,’’ and prevented its perpetuation. In the years after 412/13, the virgin Augusta did not lay her hands, openly at least, on her brother’s magisterial powers. Atop the Hebdomon column Theodosius II still appeared as commanderin-chief. With admirable modesty and due respect for tradition and

law, Pulcheria attributed her exploits to her brother, satisfied, it seems, if decisions were made and executed ‘‘under her influence.’’ But law and tradition mattered little, because in a pious court Pulcheria exerted influence that could hardly be resisted. Like her mother before her, Pulcheria exercised real power. Her vow, moreover, pro-

duced an unheard-of claim to imperial legitimacy, that of ascetic achievement. Together the Trier Ivory, the Long-Cross solidi, and the Hebdomon inscription demonstrate that the virgin empress claimed

to be master of victory. In Pulcheria’s version the sacral dastleia of empresses approached perilously near to the fullness of sovereignty.

128. Soz. 9. 3. 3.

CHAPTER FOUR

Aeha Eudocia Augusta A girl of wit and intellect... .

Imbued with her mother’s imperiousness, drawing on a female form of Sasileia now two generations old, Aelia Pulcheria had employed influence and power in ways that alarmed traditionalists. The invective of Eunapius proves that her ascendancy deprived many eastern

atistocrats of hope of advancement and the means to satisfy their ambition. In the early 420s these aristocrats struck back. Adopting the methods of their enemy, they selected an Athenian maid, one who perfectly embodied their cultural biases, and married her to Theodosius II. When she had received a new name, Aelia Eudocia. and the distinction Augusta, her backers exploited her influence and power to gain high office and resist Pulcherian innovation, for in the East even old-fashioned men accepted the Jast/eia of women. Ironically,

the efforts of these men only induced Pulcheria to reinforce her own bastleia with new resources, available to her because she was a virgin.

In her competition with Eudocia the virgin empress brought the Theodostan phenomenon of female dominion to completion.

The Athentan Maid The traditionalists chose a maid originally called Athenais. A century

ago Ferdinand Gregorovius told her story in an exquisite book, but left much of its significance unrecognized because he accepted uncritically the charming legend of her marriage.’

At the age of twenty, this legend claimed, the emperor Theodosius IJ desired to marry..He discussed the matter with his older 1. F. Gregorovius, Athenais, Geschichte einer byzantinischen Kaiserin, 31d ed. (Leipzig, 1892), pp. 61-64, surveys the story’s tradition and concludes that it ts authentic: ‘‘Sie enthalt nichts, was nicht wirklich geschehen sein kann.”’ 112

Aeha Eudocta Augusta + 113

sister Pulcheria, who then began to search among maidens of patrician or imperial blood. But while rank was desirable, Theodosius assured

his sister, if a girl of surpassing beauty could be found low birth would be no hindrance. This was a passionate young man indeed! Pulcheria dutifully extended her search, sending messengers throughout the Empire. Paulinus, the companion of Theodosius’ childhood and still his loyal friend, also joined in the search.

At this time, the legend continued, a girl named Athenais had come to Constantinople. She was the child of the Athenian sophist Leontius, who had recently died, leaving his large estate to his two grown sons, Valerius and Gesius, but remembering his daughter with only a hundred coins, ‘‘because her good fortune, surpassing that of all other women, will be enough.’’ The two brothers had refused to set aside their father’s will and share his wealth with their destitute

sister. Thus her mother’s sister had brought her to Constantinople, and her father’s sister, who resided there, was able to atrange an audience with the empress. When Pulcheria received the girl in the palace, she was astonished at her beauty and at the intelligence and sophistication with which she presented her grievancé. Assured by the two aunts that Athenais was indeed a virgin, and, moreover, that she

had received an excellent classical education from her father, the empress hastened to report to her brother. She had found ‘‘a young girl, a Greek maid, very beautiful, pure and dainty, eloquent as well, the daughter of a philosopher.’’ ‘‘Enflamed with desire, as any youth would have been,’’ Theodosius sent for Paulinus and demanded that the girl be brought to his apartments, where he and his friend could observe her from behind a curtain. Immediately he fell in love, and Paulinus too found the girl charming. After converting her to Chris-

tianity—Athenais had been raised a pagan—Theodosius renamed her Eudocia and made her his wife. When word reached the two brothers that their sister was now an empress, they fled in terror. But Eudocia recalled them to Constantinople, and Theodosius even rewarded them, making Gesius praetorian prefect of Illyricum and Valerius master of offices, for it was Eudocia's

happy destiny, not their own evil dispositions, that had caused them

to mistreat her. Theodosius also honored his friend Paulinus for bringing about the marriage, promoting him through the higher positions until he too became master of offices. As ‘‘groomsman’’ Paulinus remained on familiar terms with the emperor, and even enjoyed frequent visits with Eudocia.

114 « Theodostan Empresses

This account of Eudocia’s marriage is preserved in a number of Byzantine chronicles and has found general acceptance among modern scholars.? Yet it strikes the suspicious reader at once as a romance of the rags-to-riches type, with the same appeal as the Cinderella tale or the story of Esther.3 It does indeed bespeak an artless naiveté. From the hieratic isolation of Pulcheria’s court, Theodosius emerges charmingly in the guise of a moonstruck lover. To provide a motive for the sophist’s harsh treatment of his child, the romance fits him out with clairvoyance. It justifies the promotion of the wicked brothers through casuistry, as if their selfishness would have appeared less reprehensible because of its fortunate outcome. Thus the tale plays in a subphilosophical way with the popular notion of irreversible destiny. The story’s claims to authenticity seem singularly ill-founded.

The earliest version to have survived appeared a century after the death of Eudocia in the World Chronicle of John Malalas, an author who did not always distinguish between authentic history and a popular memory of events infused with folk-tale motifs.4 Later authors

for the most part adopted Malalas’s version,’ but elaboration was bound to creep in. The seventh-century Easter Chronicle, for example,

made Eudocia even more enticing: ‘‘a Greek maid, a pure young thing, with slim and graceful figure, a delicate nose, skin as white as snow, large eyes, charming features, blonde curly tresses, and dancing feet, a girl of wit and intellect.’’®

Sources nearer the events indicate that Malalas, or whoever concocted the story, did have facts at his disposal. Among the ecclesiastical historians of the reign of Theodosius II, neither Sozomen nor Theodoret mentions Eudocia, perhaps because they wrote after 443,

when she had fallen into disgrace. But Socrates (writing in 439 or 2. The chronicle sources are Joh. Mal. 14 (pp. 352-56 Bonn, paraphrased above); Evagr. 1. 20; Chron. pasch. aa. 420-21 (pp. 575-79 Bonn); John of Nikiu 84. 25-37 (trans. Charles); Theoph. @.7. 5911 (p. 83 de Boor); Cedren., p. 590 Bonn; Zon. 13. 22, pp. 40c-41a; Niceph. Call. HE 14. 23 (PG, CXLVI, 1129). For typical modern reactions see (besides Gregorovius) Seeck, Geschichte, V1, 82; Bury, Later Roman Empire, 1, 220; Stein, Histoire, 1, 281. J. W. van Rooijen, De Theodost Il moribus ac rebus politicis (Leiden, 1912), pp. 77-88, comes closest to my thesis; for an alternative see Alan Cameron, ‘‘Empress and Poet,’’ pp. 270-79.

3. I expand here on my article ‘‘Family Life-in the Theodosian House,”’ Kleronomia 8 (1976), 280-92. 4. W. Weber, ‘‘Studien zur Chronik des Malalas,’’ Festgabe fiir Adolf Detssmann (Tiibingen, 1927), pp. 20-66, shows how Malalas combines ‘*fretschwebende Motive des Sagenschatzes der antiken Welt’’ with ‘‘ganz reale Geschehnisse’’ (p. 36).

5. Holum, ‘Family Life,’’ p. 282 n. 17. 6. Chron. pasch. a. 420 (pp. 577-78 Bonn).

Aehta Eudocia Augusta + 115

shortly thereafter) introduced her, praising her skill at versifying and confirming that she was the daughter of the Athenian sophist Leon-

tius; that she was educated ‘‘in all genres of literature’’; that the bishop of Constantinople had ‘‘made her a Christian’’ shortly before

her marriage; and that originally she bore the name Athenatis.’ Another contemporary historian, Priscus of Panion, also preserved this name and added that Eudocia employed it even as empress. The name of the girl’s father survives in a distich once inscribed in a book she wrote, a verse which also boasts that Leontius came from a prominent family.? A chronographer gives the date of the wedding as June 7, 421—1information probably taken from the consular chron-

icle of Constantinople—and reports that Theodosius celebrated his wedding with chariot races in the hippodrome; another confirms simply that the bride was an ‘‘Achaean.’’!° Conspicuously absent from these early sources is any hint that Pulcheria fostered the union, a feature of the romance popular tradition might easily have supplied from awareness of her importance in the palace.

Another contemporary source, one generally overlooked by modern scholars, suggests an alternative to this part of the romance and to the notion that destiny caused Athenais to arrive in Constanti-

nople when Theodosius was looking for a wife. Olympiodorus, a native of Thebes in upper Egypt during the reign of Theodosius II, wrote a history dedicated to the emperor. The work itself has been lost but important passages survive, chosen as they struck the fancy of

the Byzantine patriarch Photius (ninth century) and summarized in his Bihtotheca.‘! To judge from these summaries, Olympiodorus’ history mainly related events in the West between 407 and 425,?2 but in a number of digressions the author described personal adven7. Soc. 7. 21. 8-9, 8. Prisc. frg. 8 (FHG, IV, 94). 9. Phot. Bib/. cod. 183 (II, 196 Henry): Edvdoxin BaciAeia Ascovriic cdnatépsia. The adjective evmatépeta is immodest, in Homer an epithet for Helen whose father was Zeus (I/, 6. 292, etc.). 10. Chron. pasch. a. 421 (p. 578 Bonn); Marcell. com. g. 421. 1 (MGH: AA, XI, 75); on the so-called Konsultafelannalen cf. A. Freund, Beitraége zur antiochenischen und zur konstantinopolitanischen Stadtchronthk (Jena, 1882); and O. HolderEgger, ‘‘Die Chronik des Marcellinus Comes und die ostrémische Fasten,’’ Nees Archiv 2 (1877), 50-109. 11. Cod. 80 (I, 166-87 Henry), also FHG, IV, 58-68. 12. In general W. Haedicke, RE, XVIII (1939), 201-7, ‘‘Olympiodorus (von Theben)’’; E.A. Thompson, ‘‘Olympiodorus of Thebes,’’ CQ 38 (1944), 43-52; J.F. Matthews, ‘‘Olympiodorus of Thebes and the History of the West (A.D. 40725),’’ JRS 60 (1970), 79-97.

116 » Theodosian Empresses

tures and events from his own career. From summaries of these it becomes clear that Olympiodorus had connections with the government of Anthemius, which sent him on a diplomatic mission to the Huns on the Black Sea about 412,13 and that he was a pagan who leaned toward mystical Neoplatonism and thaumaturgy.'4 In one of his most intriguing digressions, Olympiodorus told of his journey to

Athens about 415. While there he used his influence to secure a public teaching position in rhetoric for a man named Leontius, who was, however, ‘‘not willing’ (o67m éVéAOVTA).15 Unless two sophists

of the same name held forth in Athens after cg. 415, this Leontius must have been the father of Athenais.'6 There was more in Olympiodorus, and the summary of Photius invites an attempt to reconstruct what he omitted. The historian did not appear in Athens by accident. The Athenian chair in rhetoric, theoretically in the emperor’s gift since the time of Marcus Aurelius, was during the fourth and fifth centuries in practice filled by the city council of Athens, though at times the proconsu! of Achaea, his superior the praetorian prefect of Illyricum, or even the emperor himself might intervene for a favored candidate.!7 Since Theodosius and Pulcheria would not have concerned themselves with such matters, initiative for the appointment presumably came from the proconsul or the prefect, and Olympiodotus acted as a representative of higher authority. But why was Leontius ‘‘not willing’’? These words of Photius have long been interpreted to mean that Leontius did not want the Athenian position,!® but why would Olympiodorus have exerted 13. Feg. 18 (FHG, IV, 61) dated to 412/13 by its position among the fragments. Haedicke, RE, XVIII (1939), 201, ‘‘Olympiodorus (von Theben),’’ followed by Maenchen-Helfen, Hums, p. 74, assumes that Olympiodorus was in the service of the western court at the time, a hypothesis the argument presented here will tend to refute.

14. Frgg. 1, 27, 38 (FHG, IV, 58, 63, 66); Zos. 5. 35. 5; cf. Thompson, ‘‘Olympiodorus,’’ p. 43, and Matthews, ‘‘Olympiodorus,’’ p. 79. 15. Frg. 28 (FHG, IV, 63). 16. An identification accepted, e.g., by Gregorovius, Athenats, p. 14; Seeck, Geschichte, V1, 82; PLRE, Il, 668-69, ‘‘Leontius 6’’; and Alan Cameron, ‘‘Empress and Poet,’’ p. 274. 17. J. W.H. Walden, The Universities of Anctent Greece (New York, 1909), pp. 134-35, 138-42. The case of Prohaeresius, who established himself in the sophistic chair in Athens ca. 340-50 is particularly instructive. See Eunap. V. sop4., pp. 487-90 Boissonade, and Walden, Universities, pp. 152-58. 18. See the translations of Miller, FHG, IV, 63, Henry, I, 177; also Alan Cameron, ‘‘Empress and Poet,’’ p. 275.

Aelia Eudocia Augusta » 117

himself and why did Leontius after all accept the appointment? Another look at the summary of Photius provides an alternative explanation. In the same passage Olympiodorus described the initiation rite anyone, but ‘“‘especially a foreigner’’ (kal pdAtota E€vov), had to undergo to gain admission to the company of scholars. ‘‘All newcomers, whether young or mature men’’ (6001 verAvdsc, &v TE wixpol, &v te peydAo1), faced a degrading game of tug and pull in front of the public baths before they could be admitted to the ritual washing and don the philosopher’s cloak (tpiB@v).!9 Olympiodorus seems to have described this rite with a specific ‘‘foreigner’’ in mind, and if that man was also ‘‘mature’’ he may well have been ‘‘unwilling’’ to face the indignity. That man was Leontius, it appears, and he was not an Athenian at all but an ambitious ‘‘newcomer’’ who secured the prized sophistic chair in Athens through connections in high places. Confirmation of this interpretation and further precision come from a famous display of Eudocia’s eloquence. In 438, on her way to fulfill a vow in the Holy Land, she delivered an encomium of Antioch before the senate of the city, casting it in Homeric hexameters. In it she included the line:

‘Ypetépns yevets te kat aipatos ebyouat sivar Of your proud line and blood I claim to be.

Influenced by the traditional story of Eudocia’s origin, the sixthcentury author who recorded this verse explained it as a flattering hint at the tradition that Athenians were included among the first colonists of Antioch.” Stripped of this antiquarian lore, the words of Eudocia

but from Antioch. }

speak for themselves. Athenais, it appears, hailed not from Athens Thus she later showered favots on her ancestral city. She persuaded Theodosius to extend the walls of Antioch to take in a large 19. Greg. Naz. Or. 20 (43). 15-16 (PG, XXXVI, 513-17) gives another account of the same rite; cf. z@. 17 (col. 517) and Liban. Ep. 301 (X, 282 Foerster) for teachers and students wearing the philosopher's cloak, and Soc. 7. 37 for the rhetor Silvanus, who refused to wear it after becoming a Christian. 20. Evagr. 1. 20. The verse is an adaptation of J/, 6G. 211, 20. 241. Cf. Joh. Mal. 8 (p. 201 Bonn) and G. Downey, A History of Antioch in Syria (Princeton, 1961), pp. 79, 451, for the Athenian colonists. Alan Cameron (‘‘Empress and Poet,’’ p. 278) declares correctly ‘‘on the face of it [Eudocia’s verse] might look like a claim to Antiochene blood.’’ Thus it would also have looked to Eudocia’s audience, which was presumably less erudite than Evagrius.

118 « Theodostan Empresses

suburb—an appropriate project for the city’s most prominent daughter.21 Among Eudocia’s literary interests, moreover, was St. Cyprian, a pagan magician who embraced Christianity when the lovely Justina, with Christ’s assistance, successfully resisted his advances, then became

bishop of Antioch and suffered martyrdom in the Diocletianic perse-

cution. Eudocia turned a preexisting prose text of his vzta@ into laborious hexameters.22 Her concern for Antioch and its Christian mythology was more than accidental. Eudocia had left her native city

in childhood when Leontius, like other literati of the day, traveled abroad to seek advancement.?3 Her pagan name of Athenais indicates not nationality but her father’s devotion to Attic culture, a devotion which accounts for his efforts to secure the sophistic chair in Athens, and which Eudocia/ Athenais continued to share (as Priscus confirmed) even after her baptism.74 There is still more in the summaries of Olympiodorus. In another

digression?’ the historian reported that some inhabitants of Thrace had discovered three silver statues that had been buried there earlier as fetishes to ward off barbarian invaders. Olympiodorus accepted their efficacy for this purpose, as did the Roman ‘‘governor’’ (&pxov) of Thrace who reported the discovery to Theodosius II and had them

dug out by imperial command. The ‘‘governor’’ himself informed Olympiodorus that within a few days after the statues were removed Goths had overrun all of Thrace, and that not long thereafter the Huns and Scythians had invaded both Illyricum and Thrace.26 His name was Valerius, and the combination of his confidence in an ancient pagan rite and his acquaintance with Olympiodorus argues that he was Athenais’ brother. That the bride of Theodosius had a brother so named is confirmed by an independent hagiographical 21. Joh. Mal. 14 (pp. 346-57 Bonn); Evagr. 1. 20; G. Downey, ‘“The Wall of Theodosius at Antioch,’’ AJP 62 (1941), 207-13. 22. Eudociae Augustae Procli Lycit, Claudtani carminum graecorum reliquiae, ed. A. Ludwich (Leipzig, 1897), pp. 16-79. 23. Alan Cameron (‘‘Empress and Poet,’’ pp. 274-75) proposes the alternative that Eudocia’s father was the Leontius who was apparently professor in Alexandria ca. 400 but gave up his post and ‘‘went home’’ when he embraced Christianity (Damasc. V. Isid. 46 [ed. Zintzen]). Since Athenais/Eudocia remained pagan until shortly before her marriage (Soc. 7. 21. 9, supra, p. 115), Cameron’s candidate could not have been her father, unless the man permitted his teenage daughter to retain the old beliefs for at least five years after his own conversion.

24. Cf. infra, pp. 123, 125-26, 220-21. 25. Frg. 27 (FHG, IV, 63). 26. Croke, ‘'Evidence,’’ pp. 358-65, has recently given this account its correct interpretation and date; cf. Azth. pal. 9. 805 for a statue of Ares buried in Thrace to ward off the Goths.

Aelia Eudocta Augusta + 119

source, which also reveals that nearer the end of his life the man became an orthodox Christian.27 There is, moreover, no reason to doubt the tradition of the romance that Valerius served as master of offices. A man of that name held the position in 435, apparently after receiving the consulship of 432 and serving as comes sacrarum largttionum in 427 and comes rerum privatarum in 425.28 This career accords well with the honors of a man who began in the lesser posts of the Illyrican prefecture, then advanced to praesental office when his sister became the emperor’s consort and could employ the bond of kedeia to establish members of her family in high places.

Olympiodorus tends to disprove another element in the romantic tradition, that the wicked brothers fled when they learned of their sistet’s good fortune and began their political careers only after she recalled them to Constantinople. The historian dated the discovery of the statues, their removal, and the ‘‘governorship’’ of Valerius precisely to the period between February 8 and September 2, 421.29 The weeks between June 7 (the marriage) and September 2

leave too little time for the brothers’ flight and recall and for the subsequent promotion of Valerius and the discovery and removal of the statues. It thus becomes likely that Valerius received his ‘‘governorship’’ even before the marriage. The language of Olympiodorus/ Photius does not permit exact identification of the office, but certainly it involved the rank céarisstmus and membership in the senatorial class.3°

Now that the romantic tradition concerning the existence of Valerius and the office he held has been confirmed, no doubt need remain, even though this man is not mentioned in contemporary sources, that Athenais had a second brother named Gesius. Nor is it surprising that Gesius should have received the prefecture of Illyricum. This office seems to have been the focus of ambition among traditionalists and those sympathetic to paganism, perhaps because the IIlyrican prefect, stationed at Thessalonica,3! could escape the immediate attention of the court.3? Herculius, who held that prefecture between 407 27. Cyril. Scyth. V. Exth. 30 (TU, XLIX: 2, 47). 28. PERE, il, 1145, ‘‘Valerius 6.’’

359° The reign of the western emperor Constantius II]: Croke, ‘‘Evidence,’’ P 30. Idid., p. 358. PERE, Il, 1144, ‘‘Valerius 4,’’ suggests consularis. 31. Thdt. HE 5. 17. 1; E. Stein, ‘‘Untersuchungen,’’ pp. 358-59. 32. A. Frantz, ‘‘Herculius in Athens,’’ Adéen des VII. Internationalen Kongresses fiir Christliche Archdologie, Trier, 5-11 September 1965 (Vatican City-Berlin, n.d.), p. 530, suggests that it was, rather, the men who were chosen with the nature of their constituency in mind.

120 - Theodostan Empresses

and 411, supported pagan sophistic and Neoplatonic studies in the schools of Athens, and was rewarded for his generosity with a statue on the Acropolis beside the image of Athena Promachos.33 About 415, someone in the government of the Illyrican prefecture took a similar interest in the Athenian schools, appointing the pagan Leontius to the sophistic chair through the agency of Olymptodorus. In 420-21,

when Athenais/Eudocia was betrothed and was married to Theodosius, the praetorian prefect of Illyricum was a man named Philippus who has been plausibly identified as a relative of Anthemtus.34 Not long after the imperial marriage, the great prefect’s son emerged in

high office for the first time since 412, again in the prefecture of Illyricum.35 It begins to look as if the ‘‘good fortune’’ of Athenais did not precede the advancement of Valerius, and others like him, but paralleled it. Evidence from independent and near-contemporary sources thus confirms the purely objective material contained in the romantic Byzantine account of Theodosius’ marriage. Athenais did come from Athens, perhaps after her father’s death, to Constantinople, where she may indeed have resided with relatives. There she recetved Christian baptism, adopted an appropriate Christian name,?¢ and married the emperor. As a result, her brothers Valerius and Gesius acquired praesental offices. The shadowy Paulinus may have played some role in the affair, one that would justify the generous rewards assigned

him in the Byzantine legend and again confirmed by an imperial constitution preserved in the contemporary Theodosian Code .37

Olympiodorus and other sources provide an alternative to the fictional elements in the Byzantine romance—the humble origins of

the girl, the father’s testament, the cruelty of the brothers, and, above all, the role of Pulcheria. It is impossible to believe that the virgin empress would have approved ‘‘a young girl, a Greek maid, very beautiful, pure and dainty, eloquent as well, the daughter of a philosopher,’’ even if she could have brought herself to introduce into the palace a competitor for her own influence. The real contrivers 33, IG, 12, 4225; Frantz, ‘‘Herculius,’’ also her ‘‘From Paganism to Christianity in the Temples of Athens,’’ DOP 19 (1965), 190-91; PERE, Il, 345, ‘‘Her-

cuties 3 CTh 16. 2. 45, 8. 21; CI 11. 21; PLRE, I, 1145, stemma 25. 35. CTA 11. 1. 33; cf. Seeck, Regesten, p. 88. 36. Meaning the goodwill or grace of God which caused Him to dwell among men, especially in Jesus, Luke 2:14. 37. CTA 6. 27. 23; PLRE, Il, 846, ‘‘Paulinus 8.”’

Aelia Eudocia Augusta + 121

of the wedding were Pulcheria’s enemies, men like those known from the correspondence of Synesius, pagans as bitter toward her as Eunapius and Christians like Socrates who favored toleration—men united, however, by family ties and ambition as well as by common commitment to Hellenic culture.3* The associations of Olympiodorus with the family of Leontius prove conclusively that Athenais was known among

such men in the prefecture of Illyricum and could serve them as Eudoxia had served the enemies of Rufinus many years before. These men must also have had a connection in the palace, one who enjoyed the confidence of Theodosius just as Eutropius had that of Arcadius.

This was Paulinus, whose importance in the Byzantine tradition !s thus explained. Some critics may prefer the Byzantine sources for Eudocia’s mar-

triage, late as they are and interlarded with folk-tale themes, to an hypothesis based on no direct evidence at all. Other weapons exist with which to assault such credulity, for the marriage did work against Pulcheria’s interests. The emergence of Athenais/Eudocia coincided in time with the outbreak of war against Persia and with St. Stephen's adventus in Constantinople, events contrived to strengthen the ideo-

logical underpinnings of Pulcheria’s Jast/eiga. With her Attic eloquence Eudocta could present counter-arguments in the palace,}9 and Theodostus listened more readily because through Eudocia he experienced the pleasures of married life and looked forward to begetting an heir to strengthen the dynasty. At the same time the course of the fighting weakened Pulcheria’s hand. As Ardaburius besieged Nisibis in 421, King Vahram appeared

with the bulk of his troops, raised the siege, and brought the Roman offensive quickly to an end.4° His Saracen allies attacked toward the Euphrates, striking for Syria, it was said, and for Antioch itself.41Vahram likewise crossed the border to besiege Theodosiopolis, deep

in Roman Mesopotamia. From a military point of view the most Pulcheria could claim by the end of the year was stalemate. In 422 Theodosius decided to make peace, ‘‘out of generosity,’’ Socrates asserted, and ‘‘even though his side had been successful.’ ’42 38. Cf. van Rooijen, De Theodosii II moribus, pp. 81-82, for a similar interpretation. 39. Cf. the oration she delivered in 422: infra, p. 123. 40. Soc. 7. 18. 21, 24, Thdt. HE 5. 37. 6-10, Holum, ‘‘Pulcheria’s Crusade,” p. 168. 41. Soc. 7. 18, 22. 42. Soc. 7. 20. 1-3.

122 » Theodostan Empresses

In reality an emergency in Europe forced the Romans to call prae-

sental units committed to the eastern front back to their usual stations. Hunnit Thractam vastaverunt: three words in a chronicle record another terrifying Hun invasion of Thrace, made especially dangerous by the weakness of Roman defenses there.42 The emperor

did well to begin heeding other advisers. Anatolius had initiated talks with Vahram, but during 422 Procopius took over as magaster militum per Ortentem and negotiated with Persia a treaty that recognized the status guo.*4 The appearance of this Procopius, the son-inlaw of Anthemius,*5 proves that the marriage of Theodosius had already affected the distribution of high commands and the conduct of war.

When genuine victory eluded a Roman emperor on the battlefield he could still claim it and celebrate in Constantinople. Reaction there to the two-front war of 421-22 took on a revealing diversity. On the one hand, the Hebdomon column attributed to the ‘‘vows of his sisters’? the ability of Theodosius to defeat his enemies everywhere and to establish untversal peace. The Long-Cross solidi, with their related propaganda line, remained part of the mint repertoire during the ensuing years.4° The historian Socrates, who likewise presented a- Constantinopolitan view, stressed heavenly interference at every turn—angels dispatched to be ‘‘arbiters’’ of the fighting, an ‘‘irrational terror’ that caused the Saracens of Vahram to cast themselves fully armed into the Euphrates, and an ‘‘act of providence’’ visible in

a successful flank attack that mauled the entite corps of Persia’s elite ‘‘Immortals.’’47 But Socrates also gave evidence for a conflicting interpretation, with somewhat questionable logic. ‘‘Referring to God all hope for the

outcome,’’ Theodosius nonetheless ‘‘ordered to the front a mighty array of reinforcements.’’ ‘‘When God had granted the victory,’’ Socrates wrote inconsequentially, men of hterary attainment composed and delivered encomiums in praise of Theodosius (BactAtkot Aoyot).48 Although none of these orations survives, their content may be inferred from the tradition of imperial panegyric and from 43. Croke, ‘‘Evidence.’’ 44, Holum, ‘‘Pulcheria’s Crusade,’’ pp. 169-71.

45. Supra, Chap. 3, n. 73.

46. J.P.C. Kent, ‘‘‘Auream monetam...cum signo crucis,’’’ Num. Chron. ser. 6, 20 (1960), 130-31. 47. Soc. 7. 18. 23, 20. 8-10.

48. 7. 18. 15, 20. 1, 21. 7-8.

Aelia Eudocia Augusta + 123

Socrates himself, who apparently heard them performed or had them at his disposal in written form. To judge from his account, the orators stressed not divine interference but, in Homeric fashion, man-to-man combats of champions, the individual exploits of Roman commanders and especially of Procopius, whose tactical genius proved that the ‘‘Immortals’’ could be slaughtered like any other Persians.49 Among

the literati Socrates mentioned specifically the emperor's consott, author of an encomium in hexameters. Eudocia’s poem may have pleased the sophist Eunapius, for to judge from Socrates and panegyric tradition it spoke of ‘‘the emperor’s courage, the strength of his troops, and the conditions of real battle.’ Here again the marriage of Theodosius worked to Pulcheria’s disadvantage.

Between June 19, 422, and February 14, 423, a man named Asclepiodotus advanced from the office of comes sacrarum largitionum

to the praetorian prefecture of the East.° The man, Eudocia’s maternal uncle»! surely owed his promotion at least in patt to the advantages of imperial £edeia. In addition, Theodosius designated Asclepiodotus consul for 423, and on January 2 of that year, the day after Eudoctia’s uncle entered his consulship, the emperor proclaimed Eudocia Augusta.52 These were two good days for Eudocia, her kin, and those who had introduced her into the palace. She had given her husband a child in the previous year, a girl named Licinta Eudoxia,*3 but there. was as yet no heir, so again her distinction may best be explained as politically motivated. From the’ time of Eudocia’s coronation, the mint of Constantinople issued Long-Cross solidi of the new Augusta with reverses identical to those of Pulcheria—with the same costume, the same women AEL(IA), and the same dexterg Dei crowning her

from above.*4 Buttressed with the ideology of sacral Jasi/eia, her authority would equal that of Pulcheria. Eudocia’s coronation definitely affected policy during the three years of Asclepiodotus’ prefecture (423-25). Directions emerged that contrasted with those of Pulcheria’s regime but had clear affinities with Anthemian traditionalism. At first glance, the religious legisla49. 7. 18. 25, 20. 6-11; Holum, ‘‘Pulcheria’s Crusade,’’ p. 171. 50. CTA 6. 20. 23, 7. 4. 35; PERE, Il, 160, ‘‘Asclepiodotus 1.’’ 51. V. Sym. syr. 130-31 (TU, XXXII: 4, 174-75); infra, p. 125. 52. Chron. pasch. a. 423 (p. 580 Bonn): advnyopevun... Abyovorta. 53. Marcell. com. g. 422. 1 (MGH: AA, XI, 75); O. Seeck, RE, VI (1909), 925-26, ‘‘Licinia Eudoxia 2’’; PLRE, II, 410-12, ‘‘Licinia Eudoxia 2.’’ The name Licinia presumably came from her mother’s family. 54. Kent, ‘‘‘Auream monetam,''’ p. 130.

124 + Theodostan Empresses

tion of the prefecture might suggest continuity.>5 Asclepiodotus sought

no change in state policy toward most heretics, since, as before, Nicene orthodoxy would be the principal bond between the Roman people and the Theodostan dynasty. In order, however, were concessions for pagans and Jews—at least the right to practice non-Christian worship unobtrusively while enjoying traditional legal protection of

petson and property. In a constitution (or group of constitutions) addressed to Asclepiodotus on April 9, 423,3° Theodosius confirmed

penalties against a miscellaneous group of heresies—Manichaean, Priscillianist, Arian, Macedonian, Novatian, and Sabbatian—and against pagans and Jews. But by bringing before the emperor the ‘‘pitiable supplicattons’’ of the Jews>? Asclepitodotus won a provision

that Christians should ‘‘refrain from injuring and persecuting them, and that now and henceforth no person [should] seize or burn their synagogues.’’ And by assuring Theodosius that all pagans had finally disappeared, the prefect elicited a remarkable but unfounded imperial declaration: ‘‘The regulations of constitutions formerly promul-

gated shall suppress any pagans who survive, although We now believe that there are none.’’ For the good of the Empire, Theodosius

hoped that this was true, but his words betray gullibility®® and suggest that Asclepiodotus purposely misled him in order to prevent further legislation against paganism. Two months later, on June 8, 423, Theodosius addressed another constitution (or group of them) to his praetorian prefect. Again he confirmed existing law against various heresies, and, for some, pun-

ishment by exile and proscription. The same penalties threatened pagans who sacrificed to demons, ‘‘although they ought to be subjected to capital punishment.’’ But at the same time Asclepiodotus won a major concession. In language reflecting the tolerant attitude of men like Socrates, Theodosius commanded 55. So, e.g., Lippold, RE, suppl. XIH (1973), 1015-17, ‘“Theodosius II’’; AviYonah, Jews, p. 219. 56. CTA 16. 5. 59, 8. 26, 9. 5, 10. 22. 57. The occasion of these stserabiles preces may have been an anti-Jewish campaign of the Syrian archimandrite Barsauma, who rampaged through the Holy Land about this time, destroying and burning Jewish and Samaritan synagogues and pagan temples. See F. Nau, ‘‘Résumé de monographies syriaques,’’ ROC 18 (1913), 382-86; and idem, ‘‘Sur la synagogue de Rabbat Moab (422) et un mouvement favorisé par l’impératrice Eudocia (438) d’aprés la vie de Barsauma le Syrien,’’ Journal astatique 210 (1927), 189-90. 58. J. Geffcken, Der Ausgang des griechisch-rémischen Heidentums, 2nd ed. (Heidelberg, 1929), pp. 178-223; W. Kaegi, ‘‘The Fifth-Century Twilight of Byzantine Paganism,’’ Classica et mediaevalia 27 (1968), 243-75.

Aelia Eudocia Augusta + 125 those persons who are truly Christians or who are said to be, that they shall not abuse the authority of religion and dare to lay violent hands on Jews and pagans who are living quietly and attempting nothing disorderly or contrary to law.

Any who did attack the persons or property of such law-abiding pagans and Jews would have to make triple or quadruple restitution, and governors, their staffs, and anyone else who connived in such crimes ‘faced the same penalty.°9 In the hands of a determined prae-

torian prefect such a law had a chance to be effective. : Independent evidence proves that over the next two years (42325) Asclepiodotus worked to enforce the law. In the Syriac version of the anonymous Life of St. Simeon the Sty/ite, an account appears of a

‘‘storm’’ that rose against the church because of the ‘‘villain and sinner’’ Asclepiodotus, brother of the Augusta’s mother. The constt-

tution of June 8, 423, and the prefect’s decrees enforcing it were eventually promulgated everywhere. Pagans and Jews rejoiced. But

soon bishops brought copies of the documents to St. Simeon, a famous holy man who had attracted attention and admiration by living for years atop a pillar near Antioch.© Filled with his usual zeal, Simeon addressed a violent letter to Theodosius, refusing to call

him Augustus and threatening him with God’s wrath: Since your heart has grown arrogant and you have forgotten the Lord your God who gave you your diadem and the throne of empire, and since you have become friend, comrade, and protector of the faithless Jew, know now that you will soon face the punishment of divine justice, you and all who share your view in this affair. You will raise your hands to heaven and woefully cry: ‘‘Truly because I have denied the Lord God has he brought this judgment upon me.”’

This letter apparently terrified Theodosius. He withdrew his law favoring pagans and Jews, the Life reports, and dismissed Asclepiodotus in shame (425), letting joy return to the church.®

Scholars have long associated Eudocia with another famous event in the reign of Theodosius II—the reorganization and expansion of the so-called university of Constantinople.6* Centuries later a tra59. CTA 16. 5. 60, 8. 27, 10. 23-24. 60. Cf. generally P. Brown, ‘‘The Rise and Function of the Holy Man in Late Antiquity,’’ JRS 61 (1971), 80-101. 61. V. Syme. syr. 130-31 (TU, XXXII: 4, 174-75). 62. F. Fuchs, Die Aéheren Schulen von Konstantinopel im Mittelalter, Byzantinisches Archiv no. 8 (Leipzig-Berlin, 1926), p. 3; P. Lemertle, Le premier hu-

126 « Theodosian Empresses

dition existed that with Eudocia (or her brothers) seven philosophers

journeyed from Athens to Constantinople, where they interpreted sculptures in the hippodrome as foreshadowings of a dismal future without paganism. Not only late but fanciful, the story does correctly interpret the cultural importance of Eudocia’s origins and of her rise to power. The traditional classical education, hitherto fostered especially in the schools of Antioch, Alexandria, and Athens, was to emerge in Constantinople under imperial patronage and take on a more Christian stamp. It is likely that Eudocia herself, as well as

Asclepiodotus and others behind her, took an interest in stabilizing academic life in the dynastic city and in honoring successful teachers.%

Near the end of Asclepiodotus’ ascendancy (February—March,

425), Theodosius issued to the city prefect three constitutions on education. The first threatened punishment for any private teacher who attempted to compete with official professors and fixed the

number of the latter who would be permitted to hold forth on grammar, rhetoric, philosophy, and law in the lecture rooms of the Capitol.> The second specified which structures would be used, even

ordering that neighboring properties be seized to ensure large and well-appointed facilities. And the third granted certain professors the high rank of comes prin ordinis, providing that others of equal skill and moral stature would be decorated similarly when they had served

twenty years.°6 For the present the Christian tone of official education would not be emphasized. It is instructive that one of the men honored with the comtiva brimi ordinis in 425 was the Greek grammarian Helladios. Earlier he manisme byzantin (Paris, 1971), p. 62; also review of the foregoing by P. Speck, BZ 67 (1974), 387 n. 7. 63. Script. orig. Const., pp. 61-64, 192-93 Preger. 64, Based on Tzet. CAi/. 10. 49-52 (pp. 388-89 Leone) some scholars have identified the grammarians Orion and Hyperechius as Eudocia’s teachers in Constantinople and members of the academic circle she fostered; see, e.g., F. Schemmel, Dre Hochschule von Konstantinopel vom V. bis IX. Jahrhundert (Berlin, 1912), p. 5, and

C. Wendel, RE, XVIII (1939), 1083-84, ‘‘Orion 3.’’ Little further is known of Hyperechius (PLRE, II, 581), but Eudocia probably came in contact with Orion during her Jerusalem period (fra, p. 220). 65. CTA 14. 9. 3; cf. Lemerle, Humanisme, pp. 63-64, with Speck’s review, pp. 385-87, giving the best interpretation of all three constitutions: ‘‘Der Kaiser tst der Protektor ‘seiner’ Schule und setzt fiir dieses Protektorat alle staatlichen Mittel ein. . . im Bewusstsein des Griinders wird ein anderer Gesichtspunkt im Vordergrund gestanden haben: das kaiserliche Renommee. . . . Die Schule diente also dem Kaiser zu einer Selbstdarstellung als eines Férderers des Geisteslebens in der Hauptstadt seines Reiches.”’

66. CTA 15. 1. 53, 6. 21.

Aeha Eudocia Augusta « 127

had been the teacher of Socrates, who reported that Helladios had fled to Constantinople in‘ the time of Theodosius I after a clash between pagans and Christians in Alexandria, where he had been a ptiest of Zeus. He used to boast, Socrates related, that in the fighting

he had slaughtered nine Christians with his own,hands. Yet in the time of Asclepiodotus and Eudocia such a man could pursue a career teaching in Constantinople, retiring with distinction.§7 The honor shown Helladios and other professors indicates that Eudocia’s presence in the palace after 421 benefited men of literary distinction, who once again had an effective claim to influence and promotion. According to Socrates, those who delivered encomiums in 422 to extol the victory of Theodosius did so ‘‘because they wished no

one to be ignorant of the culture they had acquired through hard work,’’ neither prospective students who might acquire the same valuable skill for a price nor the emperor himself, who was now inclined both to heed eloquence and to reward it.6° To judge from the invective of Eunapius, this inclination had not existed ‘‘in the time of Pulcheria.’’ It was part of the restored Anthemian-style traditionalism evident at once when men like Isidorus and Procopius returned to power, and with the emergence of Eudocia’s kin Valerius and Asclepiodotus. These men had seen their opportunity in 420-21,

when Pulcheria’s godly resolve entangled the eastern Empire in a dangerous and futile war. They also had a proper instrument—an eloquent ‘‘Athenian’’ maid. Correctly explained, the ‘‘good fortune’’

of Athenais came not from the ineluctable working of destiny but from the mundane frustrations of ambitious men. The elevation of Eudocia in 421 thus proves that in the East even

traditionalists considered the distinction Augusta to be appropriate for an imperial woman, especially when it worked to their political

advantage. Remarkably, at the same time official acceptance of female Jasi/eia first manifested itself in the West. There no empress

had been recognized Augusta since the time of Constantine, not Justina, the powerful mother of Valentinian II, or even the fecund and pious Flaccilla. When Arcadius dispatched /aureatae of Eudoxia to Ravenna, expecting to elicit official recognition from the western

court, Honorius had responded by condemning strenuously this 67. Soc. 5. 16; A. Gudeman, RE, VIII (1913), 102-3, ‘‘Helladios 3,’’ and O. Seeck, zbid., cols. 103-4, ‘‘Helladios 8’’ (the same man); PLRE, I], 534, ‘‘Helladius 2.’" For other pagans among the Constantinople professors see Schemmel, Hochschule, pp. 5-7, and Fuchs, Schulen, pp. 3-4. 68. Soc. 7. 21. 10.

128 - Theodosian Empresses

‘“innovation,’’ which ‘‘raised voices of objection around the world."’

Although mints in both partes imperi struck simultaneously for all legitimate Augusti, emphasizing by this practice the ideal indivisibility of Jasileia, since the death of Helena no western mint had issued coins of an Augusta, not even of Pulcheria, whose portrait stood with those of Theodosius and Honorius in the senate house of Constantinople. In 421 the western court abandoned its reservations and emulated the East. On February 8 of that year Honortus elevated Constantius,

husband of his half-sister Galla Placidia, to the imperial distinction, and then Honorius and Constantius together made Placidia an Augusta.©9 Her elevation had a specific dynastic purpose. It would reinforce a decision to settle the succession in the West on the issue of Placidia’s marriage, the child Flavius Placidus Valentinianus, born July 2, 419.70

This decision of 421 displeased the eastern court. Theodosius had not been consulted, but, more importantly, the prospective heit bore a name that emphasized his descent from the old dynasty of Valentinian,’! while the eastern emperor was about to enter a union with Eudocia which might produce a proper Theodosian successor to Honorius. Thus when /aureatae of Constantius II] reached Constantinople—none of Placidia are mentioned—the eastern court refused

to accept them.?2 |

Within months Constantius III was dead, and on August 15, 423, Honorius himself succumbed with symptoms of edema, his 69. Olymp. frg. 34 (FHG, IV, 65, and supra, Chap. 1, n. 88), Theoph. @.7, 5913 (p. 84 de Boor), and the other sources cited by Oost, Placidia, p. 164 n. 78. 70. Oost, Placidia, pp. 162-68; W. Ensslin, RE, VIIA (1948), 2232-33, ‘‘Valentinianus IEI.’’ 71. A few years later Galla Placidia based her son’s right to rule in the West on claims the eastern branch of the Theodosian house could not make. In 423 she vowed a church to St. John in return for protection from a storm at sea. When she built the church she commemorated her rescue in inscriptions declaring that she had ‘‘fulfilled the vow on behalf of all of these. . . .’’ Among those included were Placidia’s own family, and also Constantine, Valentinian I, and her mother’s half-brother Gratian, through whom the house of Valentinian traced a connection with the house of Constantine. See ILS 818; R. Farioli, ‘‘Ravenna paleochristiana scomparsa,’’ Fe/sx Ravenna 83 (1961), 41-50; esp. F. Deichmann, Ravenna, Hauptstadt des spdtanttken Abendlandes, \: Geschichte und Monumente (Wiesbaden, 1960), p. 156, II: Kommentar pt. 1 (Wiesbaden, 1974), pp. 93-98, 107-24. Two decades later Merobaudes, a poet of the western court, would stress that Valentinian II] had been born to empire and that when Theodosius II restored him in the West in 424-25 (s#/ra) he simply returned to him what was his by nature: Carm. 1.9 (MGH: AA, XIV, 3), with Holum, ‘‘Honoria’’ (forthcoming). 72. Olymp. frg. 34 (FHG, IV, 65), Philostorg. 12. 12.

Aelia Eudocia Augusta » 129

father’s son only in susceptibility to this disease. Before his death Honortus had driven Galla Placidia into exile under suspicious circumstances, tumors of incest and of collaboration with rebellious Goths; and she had taken refuge in Constantinople (early 423) with young Valentinian and her daughter Justa Grata Honoria, born in 418. Since it appeared that the Theodosian dynasty had abandoned Italy, the West naturally proclaimed a new Augustus, John, a man of

little substance. Word of this usurpation presumably reached the eastern government by late in the year.73 The loss of the West forced Theodosius early in 424 to withdraw his objections to the elevations of 421. As Olympiodorus expressed it precisely, Galla Placidia ‘‘took up again the distinction Augusta.’ ’”4 Theodosius did not elevate her a second time but recognized as valid the act of Honorius and Constantius III. Eastern mints now included Placidia obverses among the Long-Cross solidi, with the usual costume, the momen AEL(IA), and the dextera Dei,?5 and Theodosius added more substance to his recognition by granting £edeia with his

own branch of the family, betrothing to Valentinian his daughter Licinia Eudoxia, who would of course remain with her mother until she reached marriageable age.76 In 425 the eastern emperor dispatched

an army under Ardaburius and his son Aspar to restore Placidia and her children; and when it had destroyed the ephemeral rule of John at Ravenna, Helio, the eastern master of offices, arrived in Italy with the diadem and imperial pa/udamentum. As the eastern emperot’s representative, he conferred these insignia on Valentinian at Rome on October 23, 425.77

This sequence of events transplanted the sacral dast/eia of empresses from East to West. From 425 western mints struck Long-Cross solidi for Galla Placidia with reverses copied from those of Constantinople and obverses modified only slightly: 73. Oost, Placidia, pp. 169-82. 74. Frg. 46 (FHG, IV, 68); Marcell. com. @. 424. 1 (MGH: AA, XI, 76); Oost,

Placidia, p. 182 n. 48. 75. Kent, ‘‘‘Auream monetam,’’’ p. 130. A.A. Boyce, Festal and Dated Coins of the Roman Empire, American Numismatic Society: Numismatic Notes and Monographs no. 153 (New York, 1965), p. 60, followed by Oost, Placidia, p. 49, takes the appearance of AELIA on Placidia’s coins in place of Galla to mean that the latter caused offense in the East, but it should now be clear that the usual momen was

adopted as part of Augusta titulature. 76. Marcell. com. @. 424. 2 (MGH: AA, XI, 76); Oost, Placidia, pp. 184-85. 77. Sitago, Placidia, pp. 249-54; Oost, Plactdia, pp. 183-93; Matthews, Arttocractes, pp. 379-81.

130 -« Theodostan Empresses D(OMINA) N(OSTRA) GALLA PLA—CIDIA P(ERPETVA) F(ELIX) AVG(VSTA) Bust right, diademed, wearing paludamentum, chi-tho visible on tight shoulder, crowned by a hand.7§

Apparently the zomen AEL(IA) made no sense in the West, so coin designers adopted the common legend of Augusti. Otherwise these obverses carried the same ideological burden as those struck in the East, but with greater charge, for since they came from Aquileia, Rome, and Ravenna, they impressed westerners as a dramatic innovation. In 425 or shortly thereafter, the same western mints began striking solidi with the image and Jegend of Justa Grata Honoria, and with obverse and reverse iconography identical to that of Placidia’s coins (fig. 14). At the age of seven or eight, Honoria too had received the distinction Augusta, apparently from her brother Valentinian III, who, some years later, would deprive her of the ‘‘scepter of empire.''79

Pulcheria’s Spectal Resources In Constantinople, meanwhile, raconteurs displayed irreverent wit when they talked of Theodosius and his two Augustae: Theodosius was unsure of himself, carried along by every breeze. Often he signed documents that had not been read to him first. Once Pulcheria, a very clever woman, placed a contract of gift before him granting her his wife Eudocia to be sold into slavery. He signed it unread, and Pulcheria gave him

a mighty scolding.®°

No doubt apocryphal, the story perhaps went back to contemporary gossip. If so, the gossipers managed a good characterization of Theodosius, who emerges from the history of his mature years as a man of intelligence and sincerity but little backbone.8! They also did well 78. J.F.W. de Salis, ‘‘The Coins of the Two Eudoxias, Eudocia, Placidia, and Honoria, and of Theodosius II, Marcian, and Leo I, Struck in Italy,’’ Naw. Chron. n.s. 7 (1867), 211; H. Cohen, Description historique des monnates frappées sous l’Empire romain, 2nd ed., VIII (Paris and London, 1892), p. 196. 13; Boyce, Festal,

re 7D Salis, ‘‘Coins,’’ pp. 213-14; Cohen, Description, VIU, pp. 219-20. 1, 4; Ulrich-Bansa, Moneta, pp. 227, 232, 234-35; Holum, ‘‘Honoria’’ (forthcoming); Supra, pp. 1-2. 80. Theoph. ¢.7. 5941 (p. 101 de Boor). 81. E.A. Thompson, ‘‘The Foreign Policies of Theodosius II and Marcian,’’ Hermathena 76 (1950), 58-75; and C. Luibheid, ‘‘Theodosius I] and Heresy,’’ J/EH 16 (1965), 13-38, attribute too much of Theodosian policy to Theodosius himself.

Aeha Eudocia Augusta + 131

with Pulcheria—for she did retain the ability to intimidate her brother—and with the implied rivalry between the emperot’s sister and his wife.®2

Surely that rivalry and contention existed from the day Eudocia entered the palace. Pulcheria’s daily presence was bound to spoil the emperor’s conjugal bliss, so Ascleptodotus and his associates presumably worked to limit it, aware also that her domineering personality might outweigh Eudocia’s eloquence. Thus Pulcheria took up regular quarters at the suburban palaces of the Hebdomon and the Rufinianai, the latter (also called The Oak) formerly the villa of Rufinus but impertal property since his death.®3 In addition, Pulcheria personally owned two domius within the city and her sisters Arcadia and Marina three more. These seem to have been not ordinary ‘‘dwellings,’’ as the wotd domus implies, but elaborate private palaces with marble-paved courts, porticos, and luxurious formal dining rooms.84 Nor would

Pulcheria lack other trappings of bast/eia. It was probably when Theodosius matried and his sister no longer lived principally in the imperial palace that he set up a distinct sacrum cubiculum for her, with a large staff and at its head a praepositus augustae, an official or quasi-official eunuch analogous to the praepositus of the emperor.® Elements of the palace guard were detached to provide security and a The best recent treatment is Lippold, RE, suppl. XIII (1973), 961-1044, ‘‘Theodosius II,’’ esp. his balanced assessment, cols. 1040-42. 82. Contrast Dagron, Natssance, p. 384 n. 4. 83. See Janin, Comstantinople?, pp. 139-40, 504-5, on the palaces, and for Pulcheria’s residence in them infra, pp. 134, 136, 192, 196. 84. Not. urb. Const. 2. 12, 4. 8, 10. 7, 11. 13, 12. 9 (Not. dig., ed. Seeck, pp. 230, 232, 237, 238); CTA 13. 1. 21; Chron. pasch. a. 396 (p. 566 Bonn); for the meaning of domus in this case C. Strube, ‘‘Der Begriff Domus in her Notitia Urbis Constantinopolitanae,’’ Studien zur Friithgeschichte Konstantinopels, ed. H.-G. Beck, Miscellanea byzantina monacensia, vol. XIV (Munich, 1973), pp. 121-34; and for instructive examples V. O/ymp. 5 (ed. Malingrey) with Dagron, Naissance, pp. 503-4 (the domzus of Olympias); and Naumann and Belting, Euphemia-Kirche, pp. 13-15 (the private palace of Antiochus). 85. In 431 Pulcheria had her own praepositus, the Paulus mentioned in ACO, I, 4, 224, and in 441 Eudocia, who had none of her own, tried to take Pulcheria’s, infra, pp. 191-92. The Not. dig. Or. 17. 8 (ed. Seeck) lists the sabularius dominarum augustarum, ptobably reflecting the situation ca. 395; see Jones, Later Roman Em-

pire, Ill, 347-51, and G. Clemente, La ‘‘Notitia Dignitatum,'' Saggi di storia e letteratura no. 4 (Cagliari, 1968), pp. 98-101. In 400-401 Eudoxia had a castrensis but apparently no praepositus, since the Amantius known from Matc. Diac. V. Porph. seems to have been her chief eunuch (supra, pp. 54-55). Thus the most attractive date for introduction of the praepositus augustae becomes ca. 421-23, when Theodosius married and faced the problem of what to do with his sister.

132 « Theodostan Empresses

fitting escort for her travels about the city and suburbs.®6 Also in her court were numerous cubicul/ariae, women who waited on Pulcheria and added distinction to her retinue. Four or five names are known, and they seem to have been highborn, wealthy, and able to exercise influence.87

Yet, until the end of her brother’s reign (450) distance was to deprive Pulcheria of ready access to his magisterial powers, reducing

her by and large to her own resources. These, however, were not inconsiderable. Although the direct evidence is slight, she and her sisters must have possessed properties in the suburbs and provinces more extensive even than those of Olympias, made over to them by their father or brother out of the imperial domains.8* The properties within Constantinople likewise produced substantial incomes from baths, bakeries, workshops, and dependents’ dwellings that surrounded the palatial domzs.89 Some of these establishments were extensive enough to give the names of their proprietors to entire quarters of the

city, such as the ‘‘Marina quarter’’ in the second region and the Pulcherianai in the eleventh.°° They also incorporated numerous 86. This is the most comfortable explanation for the troops with which Pul. cheria protected the archimandrites Hypatius and Alexander ca. 427: infra, p. 136. 87. ACO, I, 4, 223-24, mentions Marcella and Droseria, two cubiculariae of Pulcheria, and also an Olympias who may have belonged to her household. Call. V.

Hyp. 44. 1-3 (ed. Bartelink) tells of a very pious Christian cubicularia named Euphemia whom St. Hypatius cured of demon-possesston—presumably the same Euphemia cxbiculana who was wealthy enough to dedicate a martyrium to St. Christopher in 452: H. Grégoire, ‘‘Inscriptions historiques byzantines,’’ Byzantion 4 (1927/28), 461-65, suggesting that Euphemia belonged to Pulcheria’s household. Most interesting is the case of Eleuthera Stephanis, identified in the anonymous Vie de St. Auxence 29 (ed. Clugnet) and in Sym. Metaphr. V. S. Auxentit 61 (PG, CXIV, 1429-31) as a cubsicularia of Pulcheria and perhaps typical of the women around het. Of high birth, righteous disposition, and great piety, Eleuthera came to St. Auxentius with a pift of relics and asked to be taught the monastic life. Auxentius established a cloister for her near his own, and soon other female ascetics came to join her. This seems to have taken place after Pulcheria’s death (453).

88. CT4 10. 25 speaks of properties of Arcadius’ daughters placed under procurators in the various provinces. Part of Marina’s estates retained their separate existence long after her death: Grégoire, Recuzei/, no. 308; cf. K. Amantos, ‘‘Zu den wohltatigen Stiftungen von Byzanz,’’ OCP 21 (1955), 16-17. In 402 Synesius (Ep.

61) spoke of an olla (domus) of Galla Placidia in Constantinople that had once belonged to Ablabius, presumably the praetorian prefect of Constantine: PLRE, I, 3-4, ‘‘Fl. Ablabius 4.’’ It may well have passed from Ablabius to the imperial estates

and thence to Placidia before the death of her father Theodosius I; cf. S.1. Oost, ‘*Some Problems in the History of Galla Placidia,’’ CP 60 (1965), 2-3, 9n. 14; tdem, Placidia, p. 5A.

89. V. Olymp. and Dagron cited supra, n. 84. 90. Janin, Constantinople, pp. 385, 415; J. Papadopulos, ‘‘L’église de SaintLaurent et les Pulchérianae,’’ Stadt byzantini 2 (1927), 59-63.

3bn q ‘g a 8) cq oom Q “Tae rr os aa 6 - : 6| qd 2Ss) < za gA dé aS SS mS

_ = ext —~o a‘tfos=~a

ae) a) ow 4 S Z a E O a 6s :

e 5)- =5 Late in August Theodosius sent John comes sacrarum largitionum to take command from Candidian. This officer placed Nestorius, Memnon, and Cyril under afrest and tried to force negotiations toward reconciliation, but the two sides refused so much as to enter the presence of those each had condemned, and John reported that he even had difficulty keeping the holy bishops from using their fists against one another.!26

Finally the court adopted the third approach. Eight bishops from each side traveled to Chalcedon early in September, and the emperor came to the Rufinianai palace to meet with the legates and 123. ACO, I, 1, 5, 135-36 (Count Irenaeus to Nestorius’ supporters in Ephe-

sus); Koptische Akten, pp. 50-51 Kraatz. Irenaeus reports that the deposition of Cyril was dispatched to be announced in the Great Church. The Koptische Akten, apparently deriving from a source near the Constantinopolitan clergy, reveal that on Sunday, July 5 (preceding note), the referendarius Domitian brought and tread the deposition of Cyril and Memnon, and that of Nestorius as well. This juxtaposition

ties the arrival of Irenaeus (supra, n. 119) into the chronology of the Koptische Akten.

124. ACO, I, 1, 5, 136. 125. Sources supra, n. 94, esp. ACO, I, 1, 3, 52-53; I, 3, 178. 126. ACO, I, 1, 2, 100; 3, 31-33, 50-51, 65-66; 7, 67-70, 74; Nest. Heracl., pp. 247-49 Nau. The dates and duration of John’s mission are uncertain; Bardy, ‘‘Débuts,’’ p. 186, and Kidd, History, II, 249, suggest August. Cf. PZRE, II, 596, “Ioannes 12.’’

172 « Theodostan Empresses

press for agreement (September 11-12).!27 This too proved futile. Theodosius himself demonstrated support for Antiochene theological

principles, starting back in horror and shaking out his cloak when informed that Cyril and his followers taught of a God who had suffered.128 But even so it became clear that once again the emperor had changed his position, and that now the cause of Nestorius was hopeless. The bishop’s supporters found that if they so much as mentioned his name in the presence of courtiers they were accused of disloyalty, and Theodosius himself was heard to say: “‘Let no

one speak of this man to me, for in what concerns him I have already made my decision.’’!29 The emperor had abandoned Nestorius late in August, but only because Nestorius himself had lost courage. When it became clear to

him that Count John’s mission would fail, Nestorius began to think less of the difficulties of the episcopacy and more of the peace with recognition he had once enjoyed in the monastery of Euprepius near Antioch.'3° Not daring to disappoint the emperor, he wrote instead to the cuzbicularius Scholasticius and to Antiochus, praetorian prefect of the East, asking them to intervene.!3! During the first week in September Anttochus notified Nestorius of the emperor’s response: he would be returned, with the assistance of the impertal post, to his former dwelling near Antioch.132 As his friends recognized, this served to confirm whatever accusations had been made against him.133 The

defense of Nestorius collapsed, and the emperor’s attachment gave way to the resentment evident in his remarks at Chalcedon. There being no further impediment, Theodosius permitted the Cyrillian legates to enter Constantinople about October 1, 431, and to enthrone the aging and ascetic priest Maximian as Nestorius’ successor. 134 127. ACO, I, 1, 3, 33-42, 65-66; 7, 82-84; Nest. Herac/., pp. 251-52 Nau; Thdt. Ep. 112 (I, 52 Azema). For the date see ACO, I, 1, 7, 76-77. 128. ACO, I, 1, 7, 77; Nest. Heracl., p. 252 Nau; Barhadbeshabba 25 (PO, IX, 554). 129. ACO, I, 1, 7, 80-81. 130. Nest. Herac/., pp. 248-49 Nau; ACO, I, 1, 7, 71; Loofs, Nestoriana, p. 194. 131. Loofs, Nestoriana, p. 194; also Barhadbeshabba 25 (PO, IX, 555-56); cf. Absramowski, Untersuchungen, p. 62.

132. ACO, I, 1, 7, 71. Antiochus’ brief letter is distant and cold. For its date see tbid., pp. 76-77: the imperial decision had been announced eight days before the Nestorian legates reached Chalcedon. 133. ACO, I, 1, 7, 76-77: the Nestorian legates express their consternation at Nestorius’ withdrawal 6t1 te dxp{tocs Kal G0éopws yeyevnpéva TéEws SOKeEt Kpatety.

134. Soc. 7. 35. 3, 37. 19; ACO, I, 1, 3, 67; 7, 75, 137; Nest. Heracl., p. 252 Nau.

The Mother of God + 173

Not long thereafter, an imperial letter dissolved the Council of Ephesus. Theodosius permitted the bishops, including the theoretically deposed Cyril and Memnon, to return to their sees, but declared with vehemence that ‘‘as long as we live we shall never be able to condemn the Orientals [i.e., the group around John of Antioch], for they were not convicted in our presence, there being no one willing to undertake an examination.’’'35 The emperot’s position had changed,

but not his mind. In the denouement Theodosius II again stood forth as a man of principle but little will. Determined from the outset that the bishops would reach their own decision, he had nonetheless acquiesced in arrangements that gave the advantage to Cyril, then reacted with

befuddlement when he received not one decision but two, and depended on time and a hot summer to produce unanimity. Equally striking, in the denouement as in the entire proceeding, is the fact that despite their theoretical independence in matters of: doctrine, bishops of both persuasions recognized that the court alone could make a decision effective. At Ephesus in 431 a divided episcopacy combined with imperial indecision to create a logjam, broken when Nestorius, the principal log, removed himself. What of this man Nestorius? Theodosius had chosen him to be another Chrysostom, for manifest holiness and oratorical ability,

because such a man promised to be an effective support for the dynastic faith. Like his exemplar, Nestorius clashed terribly with an impefious woman, but the parallel must not be pressed too far. John Chrysostom had a bond with the people of Constantinople that even exile could not break. When Eudoxia drove him away, ‘‘the people

raised an intolerable tumult.’’ ‘‘We are one body,’’ he said, and ‘‘what God has joined no man may put asunder.’’ Remarkably, on July 5, 431, the people of Constantinople cursed their bishop in the Great Church, his own body in his own episcopal see: Nestorius ‘‘the

Jew’’ should be given to the flames, and with him should go his Hellenic friends. Even in Ephesus the erstwhile heir to Chrysostom’'s

mantle could draw the appropriate conclusion—that the necessary bond had been destroyed forever. Remarkably also, the voces populi of July 5 identified a new source of victory: the Virgin Mary had deposed Nestorius, repeating again Christ’s triumphant death. In Constantinople the Virgin had been the crux from the beginning, since Nestorius first challenged her 135. ACO, I, 1, 7, 142.

174 - Theodostan Empresses

right to the title Teotokos and embroiled himself in public debate. The voces likewise declared a victory of the virgin empress: ‘‘Many years to Pulcheria! She it ts who has strengthened the faith.’’ Indisputable evidence places this woman in opposition to both Nestorius and her brother, and hypothetical though it may be, her intervention at various points in the controversy should not be doubted. But Pulcheria had a more important function in the Theofokos controvetsy than backstage maneuvering and attempts to exert influence. More than anyone else in Constantinople, she embodied the fullness of Maty ptety—in her womanhood, tn her spectacular asceticism, and in her claims to Marital dignity. The voces populi of July 5 prove that the

people of Constantinople responded to her piety, and that this response contributed to their hatred for Nestorius. Thus Mary's victory

became her victory as well. In contemporary thinking this victory conferred legitimacy as effectively as any battlefield success. To judge

from the Theotokos controversy, Pulchetia’s sacral basz/eia encompassed resources better emulated than resisted by an imperial person of either sex.

CHAPTER SIX

Two Empresses Who Refused to Be One

Pulcheria’s victory at Ephesus tightened her grip on the people of Constantinople, reinforcing an emotional attachment not shared by her sister-in-law. Traditionalists had designed Eudocia’s basi/eia for their own narrow purposes: to regain access to high office and nurture enthusiasm ‘for classical culture. It would be unreasonable to think that baptism for conventence instantly made the former Athenais an impassioned Christian and altered her priorities.! It is unlikely that she took much interest in the wranglings over Mary and Christ which exercised Theodosius, Pulcheria, and the people of Constantinople.?

Even so, appearances had to be maintained. The potency of basileia, and with it peace and order in the Empire, depended on the fiction that all holders of dominion, female as well as male, acted from a single imperial will. Whether or not the Nestorian quarrel concerned Eudocia, Bishop Cyril had felt compelled to name her as co-recipient of the Address to the Emperor he dispatched to the court

of Theodosius in 430. His parallel treatise to Pulcheria and her separated court had left an appearance of disharmony, provoking the

emperot’s wrath against Cyril for knowing of disagreement (if it existed) and for ‘‘seeking to separate members from the one body of the emperors.’’ This imperial scolding taught the bishops surround-

ing John of Antioch a lesson, so they addressed their pleas to the 1. Forced to accept Christianity during the reign of the emperor Zeno (47491), the physician Gesius of Petra exclaimed as he rose from the baptismal waters: Alas 5’éFandAmAcv énet niev GApvpov dap, Sophron. Nar. mir. SS. Cyr. et Ioh. 30 (PG, LXXXVII: 3, 3513-16). Adapted from Od. 4. 509, 511, the verse meant something like ‘‘That is a bath which takes one’s breath away.’’ Eudocia’s baptism need not have affected her more profoundly, although presumably she showed greater respect. 2. Cf., however, Gregorovius, Athenais, pp. 103~4; Seeck, Geschichte, VI, 83-84. 3. Thus imperial constitutions appeared in the names of all reigning Augusti (females excluded, of course), although only one was the actual origin. Note also the common legend CONCORDIA AVGVSTORVM in the coinage. 175

176 » Theodostan Empresses

emperor and ‘‘the most pious empresses,’’ as protocol demanded. After the Council of Ephesus, Cyril escaped from the empetor’s arrest and on October 30, 431, he entered the see of Alexandria in triumph. To justify his conduct over the past year, the bishop then composed a lengthy Apo/ogy to the Emperor on the Correct Faith, addressing it to Theodosius and to both the empresses. In it he denied any intention

of creating discord at court. How could he hope to do so when everyone ftecognized the emperot’s piety and that of Eudocia and Pulcheria also, ‘‘the two empresses who appear to be one’’?4 Cyril’s words protested too much. Despite appearances and protocol, the two empresses of Theodosius II remained at odds after 431. For nearly two decades the imperial house was plagued with discord

between the Augustae. In the early 440s, despite appearances and despite the imperatives of marriage and blood, both of them even broke openly with the emperor and he with them. Pulcheria withdrew from Constantinople to a more solitary abode in its suburbs, Eudocia to permanent exile far away in the Holy Land. For a time others—politictans and generals, monks and palace eunuchs—controlled Theodosius. Early in 450, however, shortly before Theodosius died, Pulcheria returned to power and to harmony with her brother.

This restoration of harmony in the Jastleia allowed Pulcheria to arrange a smooth succession and to engineer the victory of orthodoxy

in the Council of Chalcedon (451). That council, whose bishops acclaimed Pulcheria as the ‘‘New Helena,’’ was her most glorious triumph and the last great monument of the Theodosian dynasty.

The Apple of Discord According to John Malalas, a remarkable apple was the source of the discord that ruined Eudocia’s marriage. Although the chronicler did

not provide a date for the events he described, those which were genuine probably commenced early in 443.5 On the Epiphany feast, Malalas wrote,® the emperor emerged from his palace to celebrate in the Great Church. He left behind the master of offices, Paulinus, who excused himself from attending the 4. ACO, I, 1, 3, 77, 79-80. 5. Infra, pp. 192-94. 6. Joh. Mal. 14 (pp. 356-57 Bonn); cf. Chron. pasch. a. 444 (pp. 584-85 Bonn); Theoph. @.2. 5940 (p. 99 de Boor); Cedren., p. 601 Bonn; Zon. 13. 23, p. 44c-d; Niceph. Call. HE 14. 23, 49 (PG, CXLVI, 1129-32, 1232); Script. orig.

Two Empresses + 177

emperor because of an injured foot. As it happened, a poor man had brought to the palace a Phrygian apple of such unusual size that ir amazed the emperor and all the great men in his company. Theodosius had presented this apple to Eudocia, and she now gave it inno-

cently to Paulinus, “‘because he was the emperor’s friend.’’ Not knowing the apple’s origin, Paulinus in turn dispatched it to Theodosius as he reentered the palace, and at once the emperor recognized

his gift. When questioned Eudocia swore that she had eaten the apple, but her protests only confirmed the emperor’s fears. An apple, of course, was a token of love, and his wife’s denials were intended to conceal her adulterous passion for Paulinus. Theodosius ordered the execution of Paulinus, whose youthfulness and manly beauty served to confirm the appearance of guilt. This action offended Eudocia, for the public concluded that she too was at fault. Angrily she demanded

that Theodosius dismiss her, and when he agreed the Augusta left him and Constantinople, to pray in the holy places of Jerusalem. Malalas’ version of these events, unlike his account of Eudocia’s marriage, has inspired little confidence either in antiquity or among modern scholars.” Here the chronicler transmitted popular tradition,

in a tale patently invented to save the reputation of an amiable figure. The tale employed a familiar folk-tale device? to demonstrate that an unfortunate accident had produced the evil whisperings that

surrounded Eudocia’s departure. It also had a deeper purpose: to maintain appearances under pressure of the facts that the Augusta did leave her husband and Theodosius did execute Paulinus. A popular audience would respond best to a sanitary explanation for stress

within the imperial household, one that did not tinge the Jasieia with the scandal of adultery or a profound division of wills. Like Eudocia’s departure and the execution of Paulinus, the discord implied in the Malalas tale was genuine enough.? It originated

not in an accident in 443, as Malalas supposed, but in Eudocia’s Const., pp. 261-63 Preger; John of Nikiu 87. 1-13 (trans. Charles). The later accounts seem to depend on Malalas, except that Theophanes and Nicephorus add the information that Paulinus was executed in Cappadocia, an item which must have been transmitted independently (cf. Marcell. com. a. 440. 1[MGH: AA, XI, 80], infra, 1. 83). 7. In antiquity Evagr. 1. 21 expressed skepticism; for characteristic modem reactions see Bury, Later Roman Empire, 1, 229-30; and van Rooijen, De Theodosii II moribus, pp. 88-91; and now Alan Cameton, ‘‘Empress and Poet,’’ pp. 258-59. 8. Cf. A.R. Littlewood, ‘The Symbolism of the Apple in Byzantine Literature,”’ Jahrbuch der Gsterretchischen Byzantinistik 23 (1974), 33-59. 9. Cf. also the report that Pulcheria tricked Theodosius into giving Eudocia to her as a slave: supra, p. 130.

178 » Theodostan Empresses

efforts during the preceding years to make her Jasi/eia more effective. Here again Cyril of Alexandria had focused attention on the problem. In his Address to the Emperor he had observed a distinction between the two empresses of Theodosius II. Cyril had contrasted Pulcheria, ‘‘who takes part in the care and administration of your empite,’’ with

Eudocia, ‘‘who exults in the offspring you have prayed for’’ and ‘“permits the hope that your dynasty will last forever.’’!° If Eudocia read the Address to the Emperor, Cyril’s words must have distressed her profoundly. She might ‘‘exult in offspring,’’ but thus far she had presented her husband only with girls, with Licinia

Eudoxia (b. 422) and a second daughter, Flaccilla. Nor would she meet with greater success in the future. Flaccilla died early in 431,"! and thereafter Licinia Eudoxia remained an only child. Since together Theodosius and his consort had managed two successful pregnancies,

presumably the difficulty was not physiological. More likely the example of Pulcheria and the emperor’s well-known admiration for monks,!2 both of which the Mary victory at Ephesus can only have reinforced, persuaded him to return to the regimen he had followed before his marriage. As a later source indicates,!3 in the years after 431 the eastern court may well have produced the incredible phenomenon of an emperor who had abandoned conjugal relations with his wife. In any event, Eudocia would never bear a son to confirm Cyril’s hope that ‘‘your dynasty will last forever.’’'4 She could no longer claim to emulate the namesakes of her daughters, neither the | 10. ACO, I, 1, 1,.44; cf. supra, p. 159. 11. Holum, ‘‘Family Life,’’ p. 291 n. 62. 12. E.g., for the archimandrite Dalmatius, ACO, I, 1, 2, 65. See also the texts published by Nau in PO, VIII, 166-74. 13. Cod. Paris. gr. 881 published by Nau, z4id., 173; cf. John of Nikiu 87. 14-16 (trans. Charles). 14, Cf. the desperate reaction of Eusebia, wife of Constantius 1, who was

likewise denied the advantages of childbearing (supra; p. 28). A son of Eudocia named Arcadius has now made his way into PLRE, i, 130, ‘‘Arcadius 1,’’ and Alan Cameron, ‘‘Empress and Poet,’’ pp. 266-67, but the evidence adduced refets to the emperor who died in 408. ILS 818 (supra, p. 128, n. 71) paired ‘'d. n. Arcadius’’ and ‘‘d. n. Eudoxia Aug.’ with ‘‘d. n. Theodosius’’ and ‘‘d. n. Eudocia,’’ obviously the

familiar imperial couples. The verse dedication of a presentation copy of Proba’s Cento (ed. Schenkl, CSEL, XVI, 568) addresses an eastern emperor who is ‘‘spes orbis fratrisque decus,’’ obviously Arcadius, rather than Theodostus II, who had no brother (so Schenkl, CSEL, XVI, 515). It urges Arcadius to pass the Ce#fo on to an awaited but as yet unborn and hence unnamed heir, ‘‘Arcadius Junior,’’ who in turn will transmit the work to his imperial descendants: ‘‘haec relegas servesque diu tradasque minori / Arcadio, haec ille suo semini, haec tua semper / accipiat doceatque suos augusta propago.’’ Eudocia’s son vanishes.

Two Empresses + 179

earlier Eudoxia, who had exploited childbearing so effectively, nor the original Flaccilla, whose image depended on it. Deprived of this resource, Eudocia confronted Pulcheria, who, as Cyril put it, ‘‘takes part in the care and administration of your

empire.’’ If the virgin empress had suffered effacement after her brother’s marriage, Cyril’s words confirm that even before 431 she had returned to prominence in the government. Pulcheria’s victory at

Ephesus further strengthened her position. As the resignation of Nestorius had demonstrated, resistance could be hazardous. Within a few months of that resignation, the eastern govern-

ment initiated a campaign to restore the unity of the church. The vigor of this campaign contrasted so sharply with the emperor’s helplessness in 431 that Pulcheria's more resolute hand must have been in control.!5 Immediately after the new bishop Maximian occupied the see of Constantinople, he and a synod of episcopal colleagues deposed several other bishops who refused to break with Nestorius, including Dorotheus of Marcianopolis in Moesia Inferior.!6 Dorotheus would not give way, so the government ordered the magister militum praesentatis, Plinta, to install a successor by force.17 A few months later (about early summer of 432) Theodosius dispatched the ‘‘respectable tribune and notary Aristolaus’’!® to Antioch, where he urged Bishop

John and his allies to withdraw support from Nestorius; then on to Alexandria to dissuade Cyril from extreme doctrinal positions which offended the Antiochenes; then to Antioch again and back to Constantinople. Aristolaus traveled as a diplomat, urging concessions in the interests of peace, but he could also apply coercion. A magéster miulitum stood by with orders to use force (‘‘praeceptum habet ut nobis violentus insistat’’) in case John of Antioch proved recalcitrant.19 The mission of Aristolaus worried Cyril so much that he suffered an attack of melancholy —so wrote Cyril’s archdeacon Epiphanius in a

letter (ca. autumn of 432) to Maximian, bishop of Constantinople. This letter survives and is a most illuminating document.?° Epiphanius 15. Schwartz, Cyri//, p. 42 n. 2. 16. ACO, I, 1, 3, 70; 4, 32; 7, 153-54, 164. 17. ACO, I, 4, 88, 155; cf. Demandt, RE, suppl. XII (1970), 746, ‘Magister Militum’’ (with the wrong date). 18. ACO, I, 1, 4, 6, 8, 21, 31, 33; 7, 146, 150, 154-55, 158, 160, 162; Nest. Heracl., pp. 255-59, 289-90 Nau; Kidd, History, Ill, 254-62; PLRE, I, 146-47; esp. Schwartz in ACO, I, 1, 8, 12-13, for chronology. 19. ACO, I, 4, 91; Barhadbeshabba 27 (PO, IX, 564); cf. Demande, RE, suppl. XII (1970), 741-42, ‘‘Magister Militum.’’

20. ACO, I, 4, 222-25.

180 » Theodostan Empresses

confirmed that Aristolaus pressured Cyril to accept the new imperial

policy (‘‘insistebat ei ut divinitus sancita perageret’’), expressed Cyril’s displeasure that Constantinople was not working in concert with him, and in particular complained that Maximian had not yet secured the withdrawal of Aristolaus from Alexandria. Epiphanius also recommended means by which Cyril’s aims could be accomplished. Cyril had written earlier to ‘‘Our Lady the Handmaid of God and Most Reverent Pulcheria, to [her] praepositus Paul and [her] cubicularius Romanus, to Lady Marcella [her] cubicularia, and to Droseria.’’2! Now Maximian himself should hasten to beseech Pulcheria to devote herself as she had before to the cause of Alexandria, ‘for I think,’’ Epiphantus wrote, ‘‘that she does not concern herself sufficiently for your brother the most holy Cyril.’’ Maximian was also to ask Lady Olympias for assistance; this woman (otherwise unknown) could enlist Marcella and Droseria, who were open to her influence. Finally, Epiphanius urged the bishop to plead with Pulcherta to “‘have Lausus enter [the palace] and become [the emperor’s] praepositus so

that the power of Chryseros might be dissolved . . . , because otherwise our troubles will continue forever.”’

After these recommendations, Epiphanius appended a list of ‘‘benedictions,’’ presents Alexandria had sent to Constantinople to win the favor of the mighty. The purpose of the list was to impress Maximian with the volume of bribes Cyril had delivered in their common interest. For example, Paul, the praepositus of Pulcheria, had received: four large woolen carpets, two small woolen carpets, four cushions, four fine tablecloths, six large curtains, six small curtains, six seats, twelve door cur- -

tains, two large embroidered cloths, four chairs decorated in ivory, four bersoina [?|, two large sabulae [paintings?], and two peacocks.?2

Cyril had also sent Paul fifty pounds of gold ‘‘so that he would co-

operate,’’ and the same amount in presents and gold had gone to Droseria and to Marcella, to induce them ‘‘to plead with the Augusta and to persuade her.’’ Even the domestic of Paul had received his share, although it was smaller, as befitted his rank. 21. Paul, Romanus, Marcella, and Droseria are not identified explicitly as members of Pulcheria’s cubicu/um, but they appear in close association with her name, while the cudicularii of Theodosius are mentioned elsewhere. Romanus later won promotion in the service of Pulcheria or Theodosius. He must be the former praepositus Romanus who attended the Council of Chalcedon (ACO, II, 1, 1, 55; 2, 70, 84; PLRE, Il, 947, ‘Romanus 3’’). 22. Cf. Batiffol, “‘Présents,’’ pp. 169-73.

Two Empresses + 181

Apart from the unflattering picture it gives of politics in the proto-Byzantine court, Epiphanius’ letter proves that Pulcheria did not obediently follow the bidding of either Cyril or Theodosius but

had a will and policy of her own. Presumably she expressed that policy through the mission of Aristolaus and the effort to impose unity on the eastern bishops. It is clear that, even so, Cyril placed much confidence in Pulcheria, since he was aware that she possessed enough power to place sympathetic persons (e.g., Lausus)?3 in positions close to her brother and to secure convenient imperial decisions. Epiphanius did mention other powerful individuals in the government and court of Theodosius whose influence, he thought, might benefit the Alexandrian cause. Some of them had received ‘‘benedictions’’ greater in value than those directed to members of Pulcheria’s staff. This does not mean that Cyril expected Pulcheria’s support to be of smaller consequence than theirs, but only that her cubicularit ranked lower than those of the emperor and would be easier to persuade.?4 More significantly, the letter reveals that late in 432 the emperor’s praeposttus Chryseros, who had received as many presents as anyone, still opposed Cyril. Epiphanius, moreover, urged Maximian to have

the monk Dalmatius correct the emperor by ‘‘binding him with a

terrible oath ... that no mention shall be made of the impious person again.’’ Obviously the person in question was Nestorius. Cyril

had to depend on Pulcheria because powerful individuals in the emperor's presence, and thus probably Theodosius himself, still considered renewing support for Nestorius! Yet within a few months the campaign for unity took on a new harshness. About March, 433, Aristolaus brought his pressure diplomacy to fruition. John of Antioch abandoned Nestorius, and Cyril dispatched to his Antiochene colleague a joyful letter of communion: ‘*The heavens rejoice and earth is made glad. For the wall of sepatation has broken down, our pain is ended, every soutce of discord has been removed.’’?°

This was a joy, however, which only those could share who agreed that Nestorius had been properly condemned and deposed. Although the emperor had said late in 431 that ‘‘we shall never be able to condemn the Orientals,’’ by 435 at least seventeen bishops had lost their sees. Some found themselves exiled —Dorotheus of 23. PLRE, Il, 660-61, ‘*Lausus 2.”’ 24. Contrast Jones, Later Roman Empire, 1, 346.

25. ACO, I, 1, 4, 15.

182 « Theodostan Empresses

Matcianopolis to Cappadocia, for example, and the stiff-necked Alexander of Hieropolis to the mines of Egypt. In the eastern provinces

the magister militum Dionysius and his vicar Titus, count of the domestics, carried out an imperial persecution.?® It struck Count Irenaeus as well. Deprived of his rank and property, the friend of Nestorius faced exile at Petra in the Egyptian desert.2”? By an imperial letter of August 3, 435, Nestorius himself suffered the same penalty,

and he was soon relegated to the even more remote Great Egyptian Oasis.28 The heresiarch blamed Pulcheria for this harshness.29 He was

far away and bitter, but probably correct. The letter of Epiphanius supports the view that it was she who directed the emperor or secured his consent for the campaign to impose unity upon the church. Pulcheria also exerted herself to find effective support to conclude the campaign. The aged Maximian, bishop of Constantinople, obligingly died on Holy Thursday (April 12), 434.3° Alleging the threat

of disorder, but more likely afraid that a drawn-out election amid popular disturbances would permit Nestorian sympathizers to rally the emperor’s support for his restoration,3! some of Theodosius’ advisets persuaded him to turn the matter over to a few bishops present in Constantinople. They promptly selected and enthroned Proclus,3? the same man who had preached on Marty in the Pulchert-

anai and who as bishop of Constantinople was to extol Pulcheria’s virginity. A late source reports that the empress herself was responsible for his selection;33 more securely attested is the role of the patrician and praetorian prefect Taurus, the son of Aurelian and like his father no doubt a trusted associate of Pulcheria. Not long after the

election, John of Antioch wrote to Taurus to congratulate him on Proclus’ victory: he had been elected ‘‘by your efforts and the concern 26. ACO, I, 4, 166-204; R. Devreesse, ‘‘Aprés le concile d’Ephése,’’ EO 30 (1931), 271-92. 27. ACO, I, 4, 203. 28. ACO, I, 1, 3, 67-70; CTA 16. 5. 66 (with the date); Evagr. 1. 7; Soc. 7. 34,11: Coll. Avell. 99. 2 (CSEL, XXXV: 1, 440); Thdt. Haer. fab. comp. 4. 12 (PG, LXXXIII, 436); Jugie, Nestorius, pp. 56-62. 29. Barhadbeshabba 27 (PO, IX, 567-68); cf. Abramowskt, Untersuchungen,

. ary Soc. 7. 40. 1-2. 31. ACO, I, 4, 173-74. Nestorius’ supporters could also organize demonSstfations.

32. Soc. 7. 40. 3-5; cf. Bauer, Prok/os, pp. 38-40. 33. Niceph. Call. HE 14. 37 (PG, CXLVI, 1185).

Iwo Empresses + 183

of the emperor,’’ who, as John made clear, had needed persuading .34 The victory consolidated the strength of Nestorius’ enemies and gave

them a forceful advocate for the.final campaign, which may have commenced soon afterward .3?

Eudocia shared in none of this. Her name does not appear in Epiphanius’ letter, and there is no indication that her views, if she had any, counted at all. The persecuted bishops of Euphratensis did address a supplication ad Augustas about 435; they dispatched it with

some clerics and monks who were to beg the empresses to lay the situation before the emperor and convince him to check the excesses of John of Antioch.3¢ Bishops in distant provinces knew that in religious matters Pulcheria guided the will of her brother, but this letter does not prove that Eudocia possessed a similar reputation; protocol required that both be addressed, that the two empresses ‘‘appear to be one.’’ Then a new Eudocia emerged, shortly after her daughter’s wedding. Betrothed since infancy to the western emperor Valentinian, the girl Licinia Eudoxia at last reached a matriageable age, and Constantinople celebrated the union on October 29, 437.37 The western court had sent a prominent figure to the East to complete the arrangements—the senator and former prefect Rufius Antonius Agrypnius Volustanus.3® Surprisingly, the man was still a pagan. Even so, he willingly listened to his niece, the famous Christian ascetic Melania

(St. Melania the Younger), who had settled near Jerusalem some years earlier in a convent on the Mount of Olives, and who now traveled to Constantinople and assisted her uncle to a last-minute conversion. On the Epiphany feast, January 6, 438, Volustan died.39 According to the priest Gerontius, a contemporary who later com34. ACO, I, 4, 154: ‘‘per studium vestrum et curam deo amicissimt principis,

qui cum bene viderit, velociter quoque deliberata complevit....’’ On Taurus PLRE, Ii, 1056-57, ‘‘Fl. Taurus 4.” 35. Bauer, Prok/os, pp. 58-63. 36. ACO, I, 4, 162-63. 37. Soc. 7. 44 (with the wrong year); Marcell. com. a. 437 (MGH: AA, XI, 79); Chron. pasch. a. 437 (p. 582 Bonn); Oost, Plactdia, po. 242-45. 38. A. Chastagnol, ‘‘Le sénateur Volusien et la conversion d’une famille de l’aristocratie romaine au Bas-Empire,’’ REA 58 (1956), 241-53; PLRE, Il, 1184-85. 39. Geront. V.S. Me/. Iun. 50-56 (ed. Gorce). Chastagnol, ‘‘Volusien,”’ p. 253; Oost, Placidia, p. 243; P. Devos, ‘‘Quand Pierre I’Ibére vint-il 4 Jérusalem?’’ An. Boll. 86 (1968), 342-44; and Gotce in his edition of the V. S. Me/. Iun., pp. 44, 224 n. 1, 237 n. 4, all (apparently) follow M. Rampolla del Tindaro, Santa Melania

184 » Theodostan Empresses

posed an account of her life, Melania remained in the city during the customaty forty days of mourning, sharing her spiritual gifts with its inhabitants ‘‘but especially with the Christ-loving empresses.’’ Like Cyril of Alexandria and the bishops of Euphtratensis, Gerontius thus

paired Pulcheria with Eudocia,#° but he did not include the latter simply to observe protocol. As Gerontius wrote, Melania also edified Theodosius and urged him to ‘‘release his consort because she desired to worship tn the Holy Places.’’4! Apparently Eudocia had succumbed to the engaging personality of this woman and intended to visit her at her home in Palestine.

Theodosius did ‘‘release’’ his wife, and she did depart for the Holy Land about February or March, 438. In view of Eudocia’s background, her new receptiveness to Melania’s influence and her ‘‘desire’’ to undertake an arduous journey require elucidation. Writing a few years later, the historian Socrates spoke of a vow, of Eudocia’s pious intention to give thanks in the Holy Places for the divine favor manifest in her daughter’s splendid marriage.42 An admirer of Eudocia, Socrates naturally transmitted a sanitary explanation, one that would

enhance the public image of the empress while counteracting the natural assumption that Theodosius released her because of disharmony at coutt. Other evidence suggests that the disharmony was genuine, and that at this time the court of Theodosius was even willing to admit it. During the previous year Bishop Proclus of Constantinople, who was anxious to reunite with his see the still schismatic adherents of John

Chrysostom, had persuaded the emperor to. order the return of Chrysostom’s bones. On January 28, 438, Proclus deposited these bones with those of the Christian emperors and empresses in the Apostles Church of Constantinople. Theodosius participated in the relic adventus, and, as protocol demanded, Pulcheria appeared at his Giuniore senatrice romana (Rome, 1905), p. 230, in dating the arrival of Melania in Constantinople to late 436 and her return to Palestine in February of 437. This is impossible. Eudocia did not depart for her pilgrimage until after the wedding (2/ra), while the V.S. Me/. Ium. 56-58 makes it clear that Melania reached Jerusalem only a few weeks before Eudocia arrived in Antioch. Thus Volusian died in 438. 40. Gotce in his note on Geront. V. S. Mef. Iun. 56 (p. 238 n. 2) identifies thc mioxptotoucs BactAidas whom Melania counseled as Eudocia and Eudoxia, but if

my dating is correct the latter was in Thessalonica, wintering there with her new husband: Marcell. com. @. 437 (MGH: AA, XI, 79). 41. Geront. V.S. Mel. Iun. 56 (ed. Gorce).

42. Soc. 7. 47. 2.

Iwo Empresses « 185

side, but the sources do not mention Eudocia.*? Their silence may well be significant. Melania was still mourning Volusian at the time,

and thus Eudocia had not yet departed for the Holy Land. If the emperor’s consort did not join with the other Augusti during the ceremonial adventus of Chrysostom’s bones, it was presumably because the court did not wish to equate her position in the dynastic

city with that of the emperor and his sister. This indicates that Eudocia left Constantinople under a cloud, out of frustration that her Jast/eia still lacked the resources of Pulcheria’s.44 Whatever the motives for it, Eudocia’s departure certainly eased her frustrations. No virgin herself, during the subsequent journey she emulated Pulcheria’s piety as best she could, by demonstrating devotion and friendship for a famous holy woman. As Gerontius wrote, Melania had returned through winter storms to Jerusalem in time to celebrate Easter, and had busied herself for a few days constructing a small martyr shrine. Soon news arrived that Eudocia was on her way

to Jerusalem, having already visited Antioch. When Melania hastened to Sidon to meet her, the empress greeted the holy woman with the profound respect due a spiritual parent. ‘‘I fulfill a double vow,’' she declared, ‘‘both to kneel at the holy places and to behold you, my

own mother.’’ Eudocia then visited the convent on the Mount of Olives, treating Melania’s virgins with admirable humility as her own

sisters. She attended the translation of relics into the small shrine Melania had just constructed, spraining her foot by the devil's malignity, but finding relief through Melania’s prayers. The two remained inseparable until they reached Caesarea, then ‘‘with difficulty tore themselves from one another.’’ Eudocia returned in safety to Theodosius, protected by Melania’s intercessions and with potent rewards from their intimacy. As Gerontius put it succinctly, ‘‘in honoring the

one who truly glorified Heaven’s King, the empress found glory herself.’’49

Other sources confirm the chronology of Gerontius and add illuminating detail. Gerontius reported correctly that before meeting

Melania at Sidon the empress had visited Antioch. As patt of the 43. Soc. 7. 45; Thdt. HE 5. 36. 1-2; Marcell. com. a. 438. 2 (MGH: AA, XI],

79); Theoph. @.2. 5930 (pp. 92-93 de Boor); Proc. Or. 20 (PG, LXV, 827-34);

Baur, CArysostomus, II, 458-60. 44. However, Gregorovius, Athenais, p. 139, believed that, on the contrary, with the marriage of her daughter Eudocia reached preeminence.

45. Geront. V.S. Mel. Iun. 58-59 (ed. Gorce).

186 « Theodositan Empresses

traditional adventus ceremonial, the eloquent Augusta delivered an imperial address (¢dl/ocutio) before the city’s senate,4* seated on a throne decorated ‘‘imperially’’ with gold and precious stones. This was her famous encomium of Antioch, which included the verse: ‘‘Of your proud line and blood I claim to be.’’47 Eudocia flattered her audience by recalling a common background and delighted them with her clever use of Homeric diction, a demonsttation that she shared their devotion to classical culture.48 The Antiochenes responded with acclamations of the empress and dedicated statues of her in significant places, one of gold in the senate house itself and a bronze statue in the sanctuary of the Muses. Eudocia responded in turn, ‘‘showering her wealth upon the Antiochenes for use in feeding the population.’’49

Unlike Helena, Flaccilla, and the other Theodosian empresses, she directed her philanthropy not ‘‘to the least of these’’ but, following ancient imperial practice, to the inhabitants of Antioch ‘‘the Great,’’ one of the proudest cities of the Empire.°° While exhibiting newfound enthusiasm for the Theodosian image of imperial womanhood, Eudocia also exploited her journey to acquire prestige by more traditional methods. Then Eudocia resumed her imperial itinerary, going on to Jerusalem, where she arrived, as Gerontius implied, in the spring of the year. On May 15, 438, Cyril of Alexandria consecrated a church of St. Stephen in her presence, and he also attended the translation of relics into Melania’s shrine, which apparently took place the next day.>} Eudocia did hurt her foot, as Gerontius claimed, and her left knee as well. But despite Melania’s prayers, the injuries continued to bother

her.52 Eudocia did consort with Melania, but she also encountered Barsauma, a wild, illiterate Syrian archimandrite. 46. Evagr. 1. 20, Chron. pasch. a. 444 (p. 585 Bonn) (with the wrong year); cf. S. MacCormack, ‘‘Change and Continuity in Late Antiquity: The Ceremony of Adventus,’’ Historia 21 (1972), 748 n. 158. 47. Supra, p. 117. 48. Liban. Or. 11 (1, 499 Foerster) stated that the treasures of Hellenism were in his day divided between Athens and Antioch. 49. Chron. pasch. a. 444 (p. 585 Bonn). 50. Dagron, Natssance, pp. 56-60. 51. V. Petr. Hib., p. 37 Raabe; cf. E. Honigmann, ‘‘Juvenal of Jerusalem,” pp. 225-26. 52. In an epigram, now lost but once inscribed in the church of St. Stephen at Zapharambolou, Eudocia thanked St. Stephen for healing her; see G. Doublet, ‘Inscriptions de Paphlagonie,’’ BCH 13 (1889), 294-99; cf. F. Halkin, “Inscriptions grecques relatives a l’hagiographie, IX,’’ Az. Bol/. 71 (1953), 96.

Iwo Empresses + 187

Barsauma’s long hair reached to the ground. He wore no shoes but donned an iron tunic tn which he froze in winter and roasted tn summer. He ate only fruit and roots which grew without cultivation,

and never sat of rested prone but slept standing supported by his elbows. When they traveled abroad from his monastery (near Samosata in Euphratensis), he and his szomtagnard followers used cudgels to terrorize pagans, Samaritans, and Jews, and Barsauma’s pyrotechnic skill to destroy synagogues and sanctuaries. Frequently his appearance alone convinced his victims to embrace Christianity.>> This holy man appeared at Jerusalem during Eudocia’s sojourn, and naturally the empress wished to meet him. According to the Syriac Life of Barsauma,

he persuaded her to distribute her largesse more generously among the poor. She requested his mantle as a souvenir of their encounter, and pleaded that in return he accept her veil ‘‘of great price’’ and use it to cover the altar of his monastery church.*4 Above all, Eudocia did pray at the empty tomb of Christ in the Resurrection Church. Like countless other men and women from all

over the Empire,*> she came as a pilgrim to worship at the spot where God had revealed on earth his power to conquer death. For an empress an effort of this type offered special rewards. Arriving in a vehicle decorated with gold and precious stones, escorted by.a contin-

gent of the imperial guard, clothed in the insignia of Jasi/eiz, the ‘mistress of the inhabited world’’ made an impression when she humbled herself: Like a servant girl she kneels before His tomb, She before whom all men bend the knee.**

Later, when Eudocia had returned to Constantinople, an unknown artist painted the scene or reproduced it in mosaic on the wall of an unknown church. Later still, an unknown poet described the artist’s work in a surviving verse ekpArasis.>7 Both artist and poet appreciated 53. E. Honigmann, Le couvent de Barsauma et le patriarcat sacobite d'Antioche et de Syrie, CSCO, Subsidia, vol. VII (Louvain, 1954), pp. 6-23, discusses the sources, but is too skeptical regarding the value of the Syriac Vita. 54. See the Syriac Vita, published in Nau’s excerpts, ‘‘'Résumé de monographies syriaques,’’ ROC 19 (1914), 115-16. 55. For an excellent example see E.D. Hunt, ‘‘St. Silvia of Aquitaine: The Role of a Theodosian Pilgrim in the Society of East and West,’’ JTS n.s. 23 (1972),

t "6. Anth. pal. 1. 105. 57. Ensslin, Gottkatser, p. 79, misinterprets the poem as a description of Eudocia kneeling before the tomb of her husband.

188 « Theodostan Empresses

the significance of the scene. For those who visited the church, Eudocia had now equalled Flaccilla’s exalted humility, and the scene also evoked an earlier empress of even greater fame—Constantine’s mother Helena, the first empress who traveled on pilgrimage to the Holy Land and knelt at Christian holy places.5® Eudocia exploited her journey to establish herself as a latter-day Helena.

In Constantinople, meanwhile, Pulcheria ‘‘lorded over her brother’’—tOv ddsAQov advevtyoaca. On January 31, 438, a few days after the ceremonial adventus of Chrysostom’s bones and not long before Eudocia left the dynastic city, Theodosius issued his last great constitution against pagans, Samaritans, and Jews.*9 Apparently the government enforced this law, causing communal strife between Christians and Jews in Palestine and the vicinity, especially in Caesa-

rea, and the deaths not only of Jews but also of some Christians. When Pulcheria and Theodosius (oi BaotAsic) heard of it, they otdered the local authorities to punish the miscreant Jews. There were

repotts of bribery and of the escape of some of the accused, so Pulcheria ordered the officials responsible dismissed from office and

half of their properties confiscated.© It is not surprising that she stood behind such a drastic and one-sided reaction: Pulcheria had long nursed a special hatred for Jews, and the Nestorian heresy, which

appeared to contemporaries to be of Jewish origin, no doubt had served to confirm that hatred.® Another episode, again during Eudocia’s absence from Constantinople, likewise reveals Pulcheria ruling alongside her brother. On September 25, 438, an earthquake struck the dynastic city, terri-

fying the people and causing them to flee for safety to the open country outside the walls. As Bishop Proclus led supplications for deliverance at the Hebdomon, a child was miraculously lifted into the air and received the words of a new litany from God Himself: ‘‘Holy

God, Holy and Mighty, Holy and Immortal, have mercy upon us!” When Proclus led the people in this prayer, the earth ceased quaking.

‘*Rejoicing at this miracle, the blessed Pulcheria and her brother issued a constitution [é0éon10av] ordering that this sacred hymn be 58. Supra, pp. 24, 26-27. 59. NTA 3; C1 1.5.7, 1. 7.5, 1. 9. 18.

60. Theod. Anag. Epit. 336 (p. 96 Hansen), dated to about 439 by its position at the beginning of the Epitome. 61. Supra, pp. 98-99 (Pulcheria and the Jews), 170 (their supposed affinities with Nestorius’ teaching).

Two Empresses + 189

chanted throughout the world.’’S? The role of the child is transparently a contrivance invented within the next century to lend the hymn additional authority.®? But there is no reason to doubt the rest of the story, or that Pulcheria took pains to establish forms of worship

that would conciliate the divine protector. Early in 439 Eudocia returned to Constantinople in triumph. Her oration in Antioch had been a smashing success. Her intimacy with Melania and her exchange of gifts with Barsauma proved that she was indeed a woman of imperial piety. She had, like Helena, visited the holy places, and had prayed at Christ’s tomb. Moreover, when she returned she brought with her not only Barsauma’s cloak but also additional remains of Stephen Protomartyr, the saint whose very name evoked victory. The emperor and the people of Constanti-

nople received both Eudocia and the relics in a public adventus celebration.© As E.D. Hunt has demonstrated, to come home blessed

with relics compounded the authority normally acquired in one’s community as a result of the exertion of a pilgrimage.®* Thus for the first time Eudocia commanded resources like those of Pulcheria’s sactal basileia.

One result was the brief but astonishing political career of the poet Cyrus.®7 A native of Panopolis in Egypt, this man was one of a school of Egyptian versifiers who regarded their skill as an excellent 62. Theoph. a.m. 5930 (p. 93 de Boor); Cedten., pp. 599-600 Bonn; Niceph. Call. HE 14. 46 (PG, CXLVI, 1216-20); Georg. Mon., pp. 604-5 de Boor: Seripi. orig. Const., p. 150 Preger, all probably going back to Theod. Anag.; H.G. Opitz, RE, VA (1934), 1874, ‘‘Theodoros 48.’’ Cf. also Nest. Herac/., pp. 317-21 Nau, apparently describing the same event. 63. See, e.g., Paulin. V. Amer. 6 (ed. Kaniecka), Marc. Diac. V. Porph. 66-68 (ed. Grégoire-Kugener), for similar application of the adage ‘‘there is truth in children.’

64. Cf. Theodosius in NTA 3 against the Jews (supra, p. 188): ‘For why has the spring renounced its accustomed charm? Why has the summer, barren of its harvest, deprived the laboring farmer of his hope of a grain harvest? Why has the intemperate ferocity of winter with its piercing cold doomed the fertility of the lands with the disaster of sterility? Why all these things, unless nature has transgressed the decree of its own law to avenge such impiety?’’ (trans. Pharr). This constitution may also have reflected Pulcheria’s thinking. 65. Marcell. com. a. 439. 2 (MGH: AA, XI, 80). The precise date of Eudocia's

return is not recorded, but she probably entered Constantinople before the promotion of Cyrus to the city prefecture (¢#fra). For the relics see also supra, n. 52. 66. Hunt, ‘‘St. Silvia,” pp. 354, 362, 365. 67. On Cyrus see now PERE, II, 336-39, and esp. Alan Cameron, ‘‘Empress and Poet.’’ The main sources are remains of his poetry (Cameron, pp. 225-35); a series of imperial constitutions dated Match 23, 439-August 18, 441 (PLRE); two passages in the V. Dan. Styl. (31, 36, Anz. Bol/. 23 [1913], 150-51, 154); and brief notices in

190 - Theodostan Empresses

qualification for a public career. In the past his fellow Egyptians Claudian of Alexandria and Olympiodorus of Thebes had achieved some prominence, but no poet of this type had yet risen to the pinnacle of a praetorian prefecture, nor would Cyrus in all likelihood have teached it without the patronage of Eudocia and the prestige she had acquired from her pilgrimage. Cyrus is first attested as city prefect of Constantinople in a constitution he received from Theodosius on March 23, 439, probably about the time of Eudocia’s dramatic

adventus. By the end of the year he had won promotion to the praetorian prefecture of the East, but he remained city prefect during

his tenure of the higher office. Cyrus also received the distinction patricius and the consulship for 441. Early in the next year an otherwise unknown Thomas succeeded him as praetorian prefect, but Cyrus retained the city prefecture until early in 443.69 Thus he held the prefect’s rank for nearly four years, with the enthusiastic support of Eudocia. According to a reliable source, she admired him because

of his poetry.7° This was clearly no minor qualification in a court where Eudocia exercised power. During his prefectures Eudocia’s man Cyrus acquired immense popularity as a benefactor of Constantinople. He apparently brought the city’s Anthemian fortifications to completion, providing sea walls for protection from naval attack.7! The Constantinopolitans remem-

bered Cyrus also as the prefect who had ordered that lighting be provided along their streets and who secured an imperial constitution permitting wills and judicial decisions in Greek,?2 the language of later sources detived mainly from Priscus: Joh. Mal. 14 (pp. 361-62 Bonn); Joh. Lyd.

De mag. 2. 12, 3. 42 (ed. Wuensch); Chron. pasch. a. 450 (pp. 588-89 Bonn); Theoph. 4.7. 5937 (pp. 96-97 de Boor); Suda s.vv. Oeoddo10c, Kopos (II, 695, IE, 220 Adler). Apart from the constitutions, these sources provide no valid absolute dates for his career. I prefer my chronology (and that of PLRE) to Cameron’s because, while respecting the Priscan tradition, it makes better sense of politics in the period. 68. CP11. 18.1 = 1.2.9. C12. 7.5, addressed to Cyrus as city prefect in 426, must be redated to 439: Seeck, Regesten, p. 369. 69. Joh. Mal. and the Chron. pasch. (ftom Malalas) say he held Zoth offices ‘for four years.’’ This positive statement, presumably Priscan tradition, must be partly correct. In my view Cyrus would not have won promotion while Pulcheria ‘‘lorded over her brother’’ (supra), so the four years must have commenced in early

439,70.corresponding with Eudocia’s ad@ventus. , Suda s.v. Kdpocs: Evéoxia... dxepnydotn tov Kopov, roenys

ovoa. This presumably came from Priscus. _71. Chron. pasch. a. 439 (p. 583 Bonn); Meyer-Plath and Schneider, Landmauern, XI, 3. 72. Chron. pasch., Joh. Lyd. (supra, n. 67); cf. NTA 16. 8 on the language question with G. Dagron, ‘‘Aux origines de la civilisation byzantine: Langue de culture et langue d’Etat,’’ Revue Aistorique 241 (1969), 41-42.

Two Empresses « 191

poets, perhaps, but, more importantly, the language of the people. Indeed, his construction and other achievements made him so popular that in the emperor’s presence the hippodrome echoed with dangerous acclamations: ‘‘Constantine founded the city; Cyrus renewed it.’’73

This was a juxtaposition which could turn the head of any man, or might be thought to have done so. The danger in the hippodrome acclamations was the same which had brought the fall of Anthemius and his government a generation eatlier. Again a traditionalist sought to protect Constantinople from dependence on the military. A civilian magistrate once more devoted

himself to efficient administration, winning popular acclaim. This acclaim touched a most sensitive nerve, for Cyrus threatened to make

Theodosius and the imperial blood irrelevant in the dynastic city. Again the palace struck back, directed this time not by a princess but by a politician who outmaneuvered them all. Chrysaphius, surnamed Tzumas, had emerged about 440 as imperial spatharius (swotd-bearer) and perhaps preepositus sacri cubiculi as well. He became the next eunuch to put to use his personal hold over Theodasius and to exploit

the need of a weak-willed emperor to establish distance from his subjects. 74

Chrysaphius had quickly removed Pulcheria, his most formidable

rival.7> In 441 Chrysaphius employed Eudocia’s newly discovered taste for power, and the disharmony that existed between the two empresses, to break the influence of the emperor’s sister.76 ‘‘Finding that he could accomplish nothing while Pulcheria ruled,’’ the eunuch 73. Joh. Mal., Chron. pasch., Theoph. (supra, n. 67). . 74. On Chrysaphius in general see O. Seeck, RE, HI (1899), 2485-86, ‘'Chrysaphius’’; PERE, II, 295-97, ‘‘Chrysaphius gui et Ztummas’’; Stein, Histoire, I, 297-98; P. Goubert, ‘‘Le rdle de Sainte Pulchérie et de l’eunuque Chrysaphius,’’ Das Konzil von Chalkedon, ed. A. Grillmeier and H. Bacht, 3 vols. (Wiirzburg, 1951-54), I, 305-12. Near-contemporary sources agree that he was spatharius. The functions of that office in the early period are unknown, but later a corps of spatharit

served as part of the emperor's bodyguard; see R. Guilland, Recherches sur les institutions byzantines, Berliner byzantinische Arbeiten, vol. XXXV: 1, 2 (BerlinAmstetdam, 1967), pt. 1, 283-85. The office praepositus is not attested, but Chrysaphius probably held it as well from ca. 443. No other incumbent is recorded, and

Chrysaphius is not likely to have tolerated a rival. | |

75. Another victim fell about the same time. John the Vandal revolted in 441, . was defeated by his rival Arnegisclus, and then executed upon orders of Chrysaphius; see Marcell. com. @. 441. 2 (MGH: AA, XI, 80); Theoph. 2.72. 5938, 5943 (pp. 97, 103 de Boor); Joh. Ant. frg. 206 (FHG, IV, 616-17); PLRE, If, 597; Demande, RE, suppl. XII (1970), 744-45, ‘‘Magister Milicum.’’ 76. Theoph. g.22. 5940 (pp. 98-99 de Boor). Theophanes dated the event to 447 because he counted the regnal years of Theodosius from 408 rather than 402 and took 447 instead of 441 to be the fortieth; cf. Holum, ‘‘Pulcheria’s Crusade,”’ p. 163

192 + Theodostan Empresses : surreptitiously spurred the jealousy of Eudocia, ‘‘who was inexperienced.’’ He suggested that she persuade her consort to assign Pulcheria’s praepositus (and thus her separated imperial court) to herself. Despite Eudocia’s ‘‘nagging,’’ Theodosius refused: ‘‘Do not trouble yourself over this, for tt ts not possible that you have a praepositus, nor will I dismiss my sister, who governs well, with skill and piety.’’

When his first attempt failed, Chrysaphius contrived a new ploy which would have the same effect. Instructed by the imperial eunuch, Eudocia convinced Theodosius that since his sister had adopted the

ascetic life she could not properly take part in worldly affairs but should be made a deaconess. Accepting this argument, the emperor ordered the bishop of Constantinople to carry through the ordination. That bishop, however, was Proclus, long an ally of Pulcheria.7’7 To avoid conniving at her removal from power, he warned Pulcheria in writing not to enter his presence, if she wished to retain her freedom

and avoid a confrontation. Pulcheria therefore dismissed her prae-

positus and staff and retired to a more private existence outside Constantinople, in the Hebdomon palace. She did not withdraw because she foresaw the eventual fall of Chrysaphius, as later authors maintained, or to preserve the appearance of harmony in the Jasi/eia,

but because she had been outmaneuvered. Other victims soon followed. In 443 and 444, in fact, the penalties of exile, confiscation of property, and execution wete inflicted upon at least five persons connected with the court of Constantinople and the government of Theodosius II, and all probably owed their fates to Chrysaphius. Early in 443 Cyrus of Panopolis gave up his city prefecture. Some months later Theodosius confiscated his property

and imposed upon him exile and a kind of penal ordination, as bishop of Cotyaeum, an unhappy Phrygian see where the people had murdered four previous episcopal appointees.”® Contemporaries alleged paganism and excessive ambition as the reasons for his political

demise; the author of the dependable Life of Daniel the Stylite identified Chrysaphius as the plotter and also blamed the prefect’s ‘texcessive cleverness’? (61a thv G&yav ayxivoiav). If these words hinted at Cyrus’ poetic gift, as seems likely, it appears that a commitn. 46, for a similar error. The year 447 is clearly impossible because by then Eudocia had departed to stay permanently in Palestine. 77. Theophanes presumably found Proclus at this point in his source, but thinking the year was 447 (preceding note) he felt obligated to insert Flavian instead. 78. On Cotyaeum see Joh. Mal. 14 (p. 362 Bonn), and D.J. Constantelos, ‘‘Kyros Panopolites, Rebuilder of Constantinople,’’ GRBS 12 (1971), 454-55, 463.

Two Empresses + 193

ment to traditional culture could still damage a man severely during political infighting, implicating charges of devotion to traditional religion.79

Significantly,. the ruin of Eudocia’s favorite occurred shortly

after that of the Augusta herself. Paulinus, the former master of offices, had been a friend of Theodosius since boyhood. He had enjoyed such intimacy with the imperial family that Nestorius had once identified him as the object of Pulcheria’s affection, when he accused her of illicit sexual relations.®° In a similar effort to break the power of an Augusta, Chrysaphius apparently charged Eudocia with adultery about early 443, implicating the same paramour.®! Malalas’ sanitized version of Eudocia’s fall conceals discord of the ‘nastiest vatiety. The charge of adultery implied inevitably that Eudocia

intended to make Paulinus emperor, to challenge her husband, and perhaps to assassinate him. Whether or not the charge was true, this time Theodosius believed it, so great was his eunuch’s hold over him 79. On the fall of Cyrus see Joh. Mal., Chron. pasch., Theoph., Suda, and the V. Dan. Styl. cited supra, n. 67; also Anth. pal. 9. 136, in which Cyrus attributes

his fall to ‘‘pernicious drones,’’ presumably hinting at Chrysaphius. As for the charge of paganism, scholars now agree that at the time of his public career Cyrus was a Christian; see Constantelos, ‘‘Kyros,’’ pp. 458-64; T. Gregory, ‘‘The Remarkable Christmas Homily of Kyros Panopolites,’’ GRBS 16 (1975), 317-24; von Haehling, Religionsxugehérigkett, pp. 87-90; and now Alan Cameron, ‘‘Empress and Poet,”’ pp. 239-54; proposing in addition that he was a theologian, Mariologist, and hagiographer, an interpretation I find extravagant and poorly attested. In my view the man’s Christianity was probably more ‘‘practical’’ (Gregory, ‘‘Homily,’’ p. 324) than profound. The thirty-second-long Christmas sermon recorded by Joh. Mal. 14 (p. 362 Bonn), in which Cyrus declared that the birth of Christ should be celebrated ‘‘in silence’ even as Mary conceived him ‘‘through hearing alone’’ is remarkable mainly for its flippancy. (Gregory, ‘‘Homuily,’’ p. 323, correctly calls it ‘‘a clever—one might even say wily—statement of orthodox theology."’) Especially instructive is the fact that after the death of Theodosius, who had sentenced him, Cyrus abandoned his vows and the episcopacy and took up the life of a Byzantine aristocrat once again (V. Dan. Styl. 31

[p. 150]). Although it is hazardous to search his heart, the probability is high that Cyrus remained essentially a traditionalist, whose devotion to Hellenic culture sufficed to make a charge of ‘‘excessive cleverness’’ and paganism credible. 80. Theod. Anag. Epzt. 340 (p. 97 Hansen), supra, p. 153, n. 32. 81. Sources supra, n. 6, the story of the apple of discord. As for the date, we know for certain only that Eudocia had reached Palestine by the time Theodosius exiled Cyrus, Suda s.v. K6pog (II, 220 Adler) presumably from Priscus. Cameron’s chronology (‘‘Empress and Poet,’’pp. 256-70: Eudocia’s departure, 440, fall of Cyrus, 441) rests on an entry in Marcellinus’ chronicle (¢z/ra, n. 83) and on Nest. Herac/., p. 331 Nau, which actually does not help at all. Nestorius does state correctly that the alleged adultery occurred after the death of Eudocia’s daughter Flaccilla in 431 (‘‘aprés celle- ’ la’’) but provides no relative chronology for the alleged adultery and Vandal attacks in 439. Adhering to Priscan tradition, 1 maintain chronological continuity between Cyrus’ career of 439-43 and that of Eudocia. '

194 « Theodostan Empresses

and so readily did he conclude from the effective breakdown of his marriage that his wife was prepared to replace him. Soon the empress Eudocia departed ‘‘tn shame and embarrassment’’ for Jerusalem, never to return.82 The ‘‘prince of adultery’’ who had cast her down

suffered banishment to Cappadocia, where about a year later his erstwhile friend Theodosius ordered him put to death.®3 The legend of Eudocia’s Phrygian apple came from a conflict far deadlier than Malalas had imagined. Even far off in the Holy Land, Eudocta still seemed so great a threat that Theodosius ordered the count of domestics, Saturninus, to Jerusalem to deal with her. This powerful general executed two of the empress’ entourage, the priest Severus and John the Deacon, ‘‘because they had been her confidants in Constantinople.’’ Not to be outdone in brutality, Eudocia struck Saturninus down with her own hands. For this offence Theodosius deprived her of her imperial ministers,84 presumably the praepositus

and court she had recently acquired from Pulcheria. At about this time the imperial mints ceased striking coins with her image, an indication that the apparatus of imperial propaganda no longer equated her Jasi/eia with that of her fellow Augusti.® Yet so far as is known

Theodosius did not withdraw her imperial distinction. Unlike the western emperor Valentinian II], who a decade earlier had deposed his sister Justa Grata Honoria, Theodosius left his errant wife with the ‘‘scepter of empire.’’ 82. Nest. Herac/., p. 331 Nau. 83. Chron. pasch. a. 444 (p. 585 Bonn), perhaps dating the entire affair from the execution of Paulinus; Marcell. com. a. 440. 1 (MGH; AA, XI, 80) with the wrong date. I cannot explain the error in Marcellinus, but an error it surely ts. The entry implies that Cyrus received the consulship for 441 after his champion Eudocia had been accused of adultery and presumably of plotting to overthrow Theodosius, and that Cyrus continued to hold both great prefectures for at least a year after the execution of Eudocia’s alleged lover. PLRE, If, 846-47, accepts 444 ‘‘perhaps.”’ 84. Marcell. com. a. 444. 4 (MGH: AA, XI, 81): ‘‘Eudocta nescio quo excita dolore Saturninum protinus obtruncavit, statimque mariti imperatoris nutu regis spoliata ministris, apud Aeliam civitatem moritura remansit’’; Theoph. @.7. 5942 (p. 102 de Boor); Prisc. frg. 8 (FHG, IV, 93-94). The treatment of Severus and John indicates that they had been implicated in Eudocia’s ‘‘plotting’’ with Paulinus. 85. A.A. Boyce, ‘‘Eudoxia, Eudocia, Eudoxia,’’ American Numismatic Society: Museum Notes 6 (1954), 134-39, attempted to date Eudocia’s banishment from court using a worthless chronicle passage (Cedren., p. 601 Bonn, dated from

Theoph.) and a frequency count of dated solidi first issued early in 443, the IMPXXXXII COSXVII type of Theodosius H and the other Augusti. Although Boyce’s sampling was minuscule—she identified a total of only 62 pieces out of presumably thousands originally struck—her statistics gain some authority from the relative frequency of types representing the various imperial figures. Eastern mints

Two Empresses + 195

The New Helena The fates of Cyrus, Paulinus, and Eudocia reveal the good sense of Pulcheria, who yielded and therefore survived to take revenge on Chrysaphius. Discord continued between herself and her brother, now firmly in the eunuch’s control, but Pulcheria did not share fully in Eudocia’s demise. Although Pulcheria had forfeited her praepositus and court, the mints continued to strike coins with her image during the succeeding period.®6 During this period also (ca. 449), the ecclesiastical historian Sozomen brought his work to completion, including in it a miniature

encomium of Pulcheria. Apparently such an expression seemed at least perfectly safe, and eventually might bring rewards.®7 About 446

Bishop Theodoret of Cyrrhus (in Euphratensis) even addressed a letter of petition to Pulcheria, part of a series in which he begged ptominent: persons in Constantinople, including the praetorian prefect and Bishop Proclus, to secure confirmation of tax advantages already enjoyed by the provincials under his pastoral care for a decade. Theodoret approached the Augusta who ‘‘embellishes her Jasz/eia with piety and by her faith glorifies the imperial purple’’ because he knew that she paid honor to the priesthood. The bishop urged the empress, whom he called ‘‘Your Sovereignty’ (10 Spetepov Kpatos), to indulge his land by ‘‘ordering’’ that its rights be confirmed. His city, he declared, would. not survive without care received from the healing hands of ‘‘Your Piety’’; but if ‘Your Serenity should tend these wounds’’ Pulcheria could add more mote to her catalogue of successes.®® Theodoret may have been ignorant of the political situwould indeed have struck more coins for the eastern Augusti Theodosius, Pulcheria, ‘and Eudocia (46 specimens in all) than for their western counterparts Valentinian III,

Galla Placidia, and Licinia Eudoxia (16 specimens). (For the eastern origin of COMOB as well as CONOB types in this issue see J.P.C. Kent, ‘Gold Coinage in the Later Roman Empite,’’ Essays in Roman Cotnage Presented to Harold Mattingly, ed. R.A.G. Carson and C.H.V. Sutherland [Oxford, 1956], pp. 202-3.) Similarly, in the Boyce sampling Theodosius II specimens appeared more frequently (29) than those of the two eastern empresses (17), as one would expect. Hence the fact that Boyce identifted 15 Pulcheria solidi but only 2 of Eudocia may well be statistically significant. These tentative figures indicate that Eudocia possessed the Minzrecht early in 443 but lost it relatively soon thereafter, and that the mints continued to strike IMPXXXXII COSXVII solidi for Pulcheria well into the period 443-50. 86. Preceding note.

87. Supra, pp. 95-96. 88. Thdt. Epp. 42-47 (II, 106-24 Azema); cf. Azema’s notes ad /occ. for the date, also Jones, Later Roman Empire, 1, 355.

196 -« Theodostan Empresses

ation in Constantinople, or he may have written to Pulcheria simply as a matter of protocol. His letter does not prove that the empress could intervene effectively with her brother. Yet its terms of address do indicate that for Theodoret, as for the imperial mints, Pulcheria's basileia still included the same sovereignty as that of an Augustus. During these years Pulcheria lived apart at the Hebdomon palace with her circle of ascetic women.®? Her two sisters apparently died there, Arcadia in 444 and Marina five years later. Both had lived pious and charitable lives, but neither established a reputation independent of their impressive senior.9° In this period Pulcheria presumably devoted their wealth and hers to philanthropy ‘‘for the least of

these,’’ and to construction of her church of St. Lawrence in the Pulcherianai, where she deposited some of the relics of St. Stephen that her sister-in-law had brought from Jerusalem.?! In this way Pulcheria turned Eudocia’s downfall to her own profit. During these years also, the discordant Augusta Pulcheria joined with the archimandrite Manuel? and other dissidents in the suburbs to rally the faithful against a sharp departure in imperial ecclesiastical policy. That departure had profound roots in the varied attitudes and experiences of eastern Roman Christians. Conflict had erupted over a 89. Theoph. ¢.2. 5940 (p. 99 de Boor); Zon. 13. 23, p. 44a; Niceph. Call. HE 14. 47 (PG, CXLVI, 1224). 90. PLRE, Il, 129, ‘‘Arcadia 1,’’ 723, ‘Marina 1.”’

91. Theoph. a7. 5945 (p. 106 de Boor); Georg. Mon., p. 610 de Boor; Script. orig. Const., p. 239 Preger; Constantelos, Philanthropy, pp. 212, 224, 274 (Pulcheria’s charitable projects); Theod. Anag.(?) 2. 64 (PG, LXXXVI: 1. 216); Marcell. com. aa. 439. 2, 453. 5 (MGH: AA, XI, 80, 85); Script. orig. Comst., p. 241 Preger (the St. Lawrence church; also supra, p. 137). Following Theod. Anag.(?), Ebersolt, Sanctuaires, pp. 87-88, assumed that Pulcheria began the church late in Theodosius’ reign. The relevant passage appeats in a chronological summary which concludes with excerpts of Theod. Anag. in Cod. Barocc. 142 (cf. Opitz, RE, VA [1934], 1876, ‘“Theodoros Anagnostes’’). Hansen has not included this summary in his edition, but I see no reason to doubt the information. 92. Manuel signed the deposition of Eutyches in 448 (ACO, II, 1, 1, 146, infra, p. 201); received letters of exhortation from Pope Leo in 449 and 450 (ACO, II, 4, 25-26, 31-32); and witnessed against Eutychian monks in session 1V of the Council of Chalcedon (ACO, II, 1, 2, 114, 119). This evidence led E. Schwartz, Der Prozess des Eutyches, Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Abteilung, Jahrgang 1929, Heft 5 (Munich, 1929), p. 56n. 1, followed (apparently) by Sellers, Counci/, pp. 34, 75-76, to theorize that Pulcheria came under the influence of Manuel. Since the empress was residing at the Hebdomon this theory is probably correct, despite the doubts of H. Bacht, ‘Die Rolle des orientalischen Ménchtums in den kirchenpolitischen Auseinandersetzungen um Chalkedon (431-519),’’ Das Konzil von Chalkedon, ed. Grillmeier and Bacht, II, 219.

Iwo Empresses « 197

side issue when Nestorius attacked the title Theotokos, but controversialists on either side had devoted most of their energy to the problem of how God joined man in Christ. Their differences on that profounder question had been merely papered over in the union of 433, All agreed that Christ was both man and God, but the Antiochenes insisted on Christ’s full humanity, the Alexandrians on his full divinity. The Alexandrians argued that Jesus was God incarnate, the manifestation of divine power to protect human beings from demons,

illness, and other terrors of everyday life and to secure them from mortality. The Antiochenes, on the other hand, thought of a Godman, of a person who could suffer in his humanity without implying the monstrous doctrine of a passible deity, and whose perfection

could serve as a model for the perfectibility of his fellow men. Thus the Antiochene Christology combined Hebrew theology more carefully with Greek metaphysics and moral philosophy, while Alexandria spoke a simple language which could more readily assuage the anxieties of ordinary men and women.™ More important, however, were the persons who championed the various points of view.» Bishop John died in 441/42, bequeathing the episcopal throne of Antioch to his nephew Domnus, a man of no great ability% who depended for advice on Theodoret of Cyrrhus, now the principal Antiochene theologian. At the death of Proclus in 446, the see of the dynastic city went to the priest Flavian; like his

predecessor, he aimed to follow a moderate or independent line, favoring neither the Antiochene nor the Alexandrian school.%7 The Alexandrian school was represented by Dioscorus, a ‘‘violent’? man who came from the Alexandrian opposition, from among those who had rejected Cyril’s accommodation with John of Antioch 93. For the opposing Christological positions see the works cited supra, p. 152, nm. 27.

94. Frend, ‘‘Popular Religion,’’ pp. 19-29. 95. On the successions of Flavian, Dioscorus, and Domnus to the great sees

and the dramatic change that resulted see Theod. Anag. Epit. 341-43 (p. 97

Hansen); Kidd, History, Ill, 278-81; E. Schwartz, ‘‘Uber die Reichskonzilien von Theodosius bis Justinian,’’ Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fir Rechtsgeschichte,

Kanontsche Abteilumg, 11 (1921), 230-31; A. Grillmeier and H. Bacht, ‘“Einleitung,’’ Das Konzi von Chalkedon, ed. Grillmeier and Bacht, 1, 248. 96. Cyrill. Scyth. V. Euth. 20 (TU, XLIX: 2, 33); Schwartz, Prozess, p. 53; Bacht, ‘‘Rolle,’’ p. 203. 97. Bauer, Prok/os, p. 116, speaks of Proclus’ ‘‘unton theology’’; Grillmeier, Christ, p. 453, of the v1a media of Proclus and Flavian. On the latter cf. J. Liébaert, DHGE, XVII (1971), 390-96, ‘‘Flavien 13.”

198 « Theodostan Empresses

and Theodoret. Immediately upon his election in 444, Dioscorus turned on the relatives and favorites of Cyril, persecuting them and extorting money which he used to win popularity by distributions of bread and wine among the people of Alexandria.°® With such a man in the ring, the old struggle among the major sees was bound to break out again, and, indeed, in the spring of 448 Dioscorus revealed both his policy and his ruthlessness. He wrote twice to Domnus demanding

the condemnation and deposition of Theodoret,99 and agents of Dioscorus probably persuaded dissident bishops in the province of Osrhoene to seek support in Constantinople for their efforts to unseat their metropolitan, the Antiochene partisan Ibas of Edessa.1°°

In Constantinople the first year or so of Flavian’s episcopacy apparently passed without serious incident. But early in 448, about two months before Dioscorus began to intervene openly in Antioch, a remarkable imperial letter came from the court.!® In it Theodosius in effect set aside the agreement of 433 as the foundation of doctrinal unity, thus obtruding the imperial power into the dogmatic sphere, and he also interfered in church discipline by ordering the removal of

the bishop of Tyre. The emperor had been surprised to find the former Count Irenaeus occupying that see. In contravention of an imperial sentence, the friend of Nestorius had not only escaped exile

but—‘‘I know not how,’’ declared Theodosius—had become a prince of the church.!°2 The emperor also struck the new Nestortanizing trend at its source. While Dioscorus of Alexandria was demanding

that Domnus of Antioch discipline his theologian Theodoret, the latter received a peremptory command from Zeno, magister militum

ber Ortentem, not to leave his own see because his activities in Antioch were causing confusion among the faithful.!° Constantinople was obviously working in concert with Alexandria, and the ‘‘violence’’ of Dioscorus had now become state policy. 98. ACO, Il, 1, 2, 20-22; Liberat. Brev. 10 (ACO, HU, 5, 113); Theod. Anag.

Epit. 342 (p. 97 Hansen): &yptoc... tic; Sellers, Council, p. 30; N. Charlter, DHGE, XIV (1960), 508-14, ‘‘Dioscore 3.” 99. Akt. ephes. 449, pp. 133-39, 141-43 = Akten der ephesinischen Synode vom Jahre 449, ed. J. Flemming with trans. by G. Hoffmann, Abhandlungen der Koniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse, n.s. XV, no. 1 (Berlin, 1917); Thdt. Ep. 83 (II, 204-19 Azema); Schwartz, Prozess, pp. 58-60; Sellers, Council, pp. 42-44, 46-47. 100. Schwartz, Prozess, p. 62. 101. ACO, I, 1, 4, 66; C7 1. 1. 3. 102. Cf. supra, p. 182. 103. Thdt. Epp. 79-81 (II, 182-99 Azema); Schwartz in ACO, I, 4, xit.

Two Empresses « 199

His agent at court was not, however, the bishop of Constantinople but

the ‘‘bishop of bishops,’’ Eutyches. An aging archimandrite and ptiest, this man had achieved many years of ascetic confinement and

emetged after the death of Dalmatius as a leader of the monastic communities in and near the dynastic city.°% The man’s purity inspired the emperor's respect, but Eutyches had an even stronger connection, for it was he who had received Chrysaphius fresh from the baptismal waters. As the eunuch’s ‘‘god-parent’’!°> Eutyches advised the emperor’s powerful minister. Long an ardent supporter of

Alexandria—one of those, in fact, who had joined Dalmatius in defiance of Nestorius!°*°—Eutyches was a natural ally of Dioscorus, and the radical new Alexandrian policy of the eastern court should be

laid at his feet. :

Pulcheria meanwhile lived on the fringes of Constantinopolitan court intrigue, no doubt developing her own views on the emerging

struggle, instructed by the holy men of the suburban monasteries. The virgin empress prayed to Marty, but if she was a child of her age she prayed more fervently to Christ, and like her contemporaries she required an Alexandrian Christ whose power could protect her. On the other hand, she must have shuddered like her brother when she

heard God blasphemed in her presence, as if the Divine could be born and die. Dogmatics did count in Pulcheria’s thinking. Nevertheless, personal interest and political instinct probably contributed as much as theological speculation to the new orthodoxy the empress now helped to impose on the Roman world. Pulcheria had long since adopted the 433 Formula of Union as the key to the Christological riddle: ‘‘For there has been a union of two natures; wherefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord.’’!°7 The empress,

who had guided efforts to have this formula accepted, took credit for the union achieved, a union that represented another victory of her sacral Jast/eig. Attacks on that union thus struck Pulcheria personally. 104. Nest. Heracl., p. 294 Nau. On Eutyches see Bacht, ‘‘Rolle,’’ pp. 206-9; Dagron, ‘‘Moines,’’ p. 270; A. van Roey, DHGE, XVI (1967), 87-91, “‘Eutychés.’’ 105. Liberat. Brev. 11 (ACO, II, 5, 114); more generally Nest. Herac/. , p. 295 Nau; Co//. Avel/. 99. 5 (CSEL, XXXV: 1, 441).

106. ACO, I, 4, 223; Il, 1, 1, 90. 155, 91. 157, 130. 417; supra, p. 169. 107. The formula was of Antiochene origin, but Cyril accepted it in 433 in his famous epistle Laesentur coe/t to John of Antioch: ACO, I, 1, 4, 17 = II, 1, 1, 109, supra, p. 181; see Sellers, Council, pp. 16-20; and Grillmeier, Christ, pp. 430-32, for the genesis of the formula and its importance in the final Chalcedonian definition; and E. Caspar, Geschichte des Papsttums von den Anfangen bis zur Hohe der Weltherrschaft, 1 (Titbingen, 1930), p. 502, on Pulcheria’s commitment to it.

200 +» Theodositan Empresses

Moreover, those who now fought resurgent Nestorianism were formidable precisely because they had the backing of Chrysaphius, the very

person who had forced Pulcheria into retreat at the Hebdomon. ‘“Ludens in orbe terrarum . . . Deus!’’ declares a prominent Roman Catholic scholar:1°* the nemesis of Nestorius would destroy his worst

enemies as well. Nothing could demonstrate more clearly how the personal rancor and predilections of powerful men and women sometimes cause profound shifts in the theoretical underpinnings of society. Thus from the first the affair of Eutyches involved high politics

and the disharmony between Pulchetia and her brother. The man who stepped forth against the archimandrite was the same Eusebius who had opened the assault on Nestorius two decades before; he had since left the ranks of the scholastici to become bishop of Dorylaeum in Phrygia Salutaris, a suffragan see of the bishop of Constantinople.

On September 8, 448, Eusebius, a man of such zeal that ‘‘to him even fire seems cool,’’ accused Eutyches of heresy before a local synod

in Constantinople.!°? No explicit evidence connects this move with Pulcheria, but all must have realized that if the reputation of Eutyches wete destroyed Chrysaphius’ credit with the emperor would be damaged, and he might even be brought down. On November 12 Bishop Flavian opened the ‘‘trial’’ of Eutyches.!!0 The emperor took the monk’s side. An escort of soldiers protected Eutyches as he entered the episcopal palace, demonstrating by their presence that the government stood with the defendant.!™ Theodosius appointed the paéricius and former prefect Florentius, ‘‘a trustworthy man of proven orthodoxy,’’ to see that the bishops followed the proper trial form.!!2 Even so, the result could not be in doubt. Eutyches refused to accept the words ‘‘two natures’’ required

108. Goubert, ‘‘Réle,’’ p. 304. . 109. ACO, II, 1, 1, 100-101. 225, 230; cf. p. 131. 419 for Flavian’s description of Eusebius and supra, p. 155, for his attack on Nestorius. 110. Schwartz, Prozess, is the standard treatment. He includes the relevant texts: pp. 11-49.

111. ACO, Il, 1, 1, 137-38. 463-64. | 112. Ibid. 468. Schwartz, Prozess, pp. 81-82, 85-86, develops the thesis that

Florentius’ mission was to secure the condemnation of Eutyches under conditions that would allow Dioscorus to intervene later and destroy his enemies while overturning their verdict. Bacht, ‘‘Rolle,’’ p. 216, expresses justified reservations about this ‘‘wohl zu geistvolle Hypothese.’’ The Gesta de nomine Acaci in Coll. Avell. 99. 5. (CSEL, XXXV: 1, 441) indicate that Florentius accepted the mission reluctantly and that his conduct of the trial displeased Theodosius: ‘‘offenditur imperator.’’ Cf. PLRE, Il, 478-80, ‘‘Fl. Florentius 7.’’

| Two Empresses + 201 by the Formula of Union, so on November 22 all bishops present subscribed to his excommunication and deposition. Surprisingly, twenty-three archimandrites of Constantinople and its suburbs also signed the sentence,'!3 demonstrating that these equally potent troops stood with their bishop, as they usually did not in such crises, and with Pulcheria. The empress had allied herself with a powerful bloc of those among whom she had been living. Despite the monks’ attitude, the emperor’s faith in Chrysaphius

and Eutyches remained unshaken. On Match 30, 449, an imperial letter convened another general council, for August in Ephesus, to continue and complete the earlier council there.!*4 As in 430-31, Theodosius once again committed himself in advance—though his commitment had undergone a complete reversal, and his orders now were ‘‘to extirpate every devilish root, to expel from the holy churches those who favor and further the impious blasphemy of Nestorius.’’1!

Dioscorus received the presidency,!!6 while the emperor forbade Theodoret, the ablest theologian and politician of the Antiochenes, to leave Cyrrhus.117

On August 8 about one hundred and fifty bishops assembled once again in the famous Mary church.'!8 Ignoring the Formula of Union, they restored Eutyches, then deposed both Eusebius of Dorylaeum and Flavian of Constantinople, tn effect for adding the Formula to the definition of Ephesus.!19 Counts Elpidius and Eulogius, sent by Theodosius to create order, introduced troops to force the reluc-

tant.120 Even the hapless Domnus approved the condemnation of 113. ACO, Il, 1, 1, 145-47. 552. Some signed under episcopal duress, according to Eutyches himself: ACO, II, 4, 144. 114. ACO, Il, 1, 1, 68-69. 24. Theodosius does not state why he again chose Ephesus, but see Aés. ephes. 449, pp. 160-62 Flemming-Hoffmann. On Ephesus Il see the accounts in Kidd, History, HI, 301-7; G. Bardy, ‘‘Le «brigandage» d’Ephése et le concile de Chalcédoine,’’ Histoire de / "église, ed. Fliche and Martin, IV, 220-24;

Sellers, Council, pp. 70-87; Bacht, ‘‘Rolle,’’ pp. 226-31; Honigmann, ‘‘Juvenal,” pp. 233-37; and esp. J. Liébaert, DHGE, XV (1963), 561-74, '‘Ephése (concile d’), 431.”

115. ACO, Il, 1, 1, 74. 51. 116. lbtd., 74. 52. 117. Ibid., 69. 24, 74. 52. 118. Idid., 77. 68; Akt. ephes. 449, p. 161 Flemming-Hoffmann. 119. ACO, Il, 1, 1, 112. 261, 182-86. 883-84, 191-95. 962-1067; Sellers, Council, pp. 79-80. 120. ACO, Il, 1, 1, 75-76. 60, 88. 134, 179-81. 851-62; cf. 72. 49 (Elpidius and Eulogius); also ACO, II, 2, 78; Liberat. Brey. 12 (ACO, I, 5, 118); Nest. Heracl., pp. 308, 316 Nau.

202 +» Theodosian Empresses

Flavian and Eusebius, only to be deposed himself in a later session, along with Theodoret, Ibas of Edessa, and others of their school.*?! ‘‘Seduced by Chrysaphius,’’ Theodosius issued another letter, confirming Ephesus IJ and commissioning Dioscorus as imperial agent to secure signatures of approval from bishops everywhere and to supervise the burning of heretical works such as those of Nestorius and Theodoret.!22 A few weeks later Flavian died, apparently from rough treatment on his way to exile,!23 while Domnus returned to the quiet of the monastic life.124 Aided by a eunuch and an aged monk, Dioscorus had outdone Cyril, bringing down both of Alexandria’s rival sees.

Supporters of the Formula of Union at first managed only ‘‘a feeble response.’’!25 When he found that he too would be a victim, Flavian objected ‘‘I beg you,’’ but the Roman deacon Hilary interjected a more significant comtradicttur.'26 Hilary was one of three legates at the council representing Pope Leo the Great (440-61).!27 Leo had been among those to whom Eutyches appealed after his trial and condemnation;!28 but when Leo examined the trial transcript, 29 he agreed with the sentence and in his celebrated Tome, addressed to

Flavian on June 13, 449, announced to the world that the see of Peter, in which resided the full authority Christ had given to the Prince of the Apostles, would send legates to Ephesus to confirm the reality of two natures in Christ.13°

Leo had no legions, however, and Hilary could accomplish nothing, so Leo’s other initiatives for the Formula of Union were of greater consequence. On the same day he sent the Tome (June 13), 121. These depositions took place during the second session on August 22; see

Akt. ephes. 449, pp. 7-151 Flemming-Hoffmann; Nest. Heracl., pp. 304-5 Nau; Liberat. Brev. 12 (ACO, ll, 5, 117-18); Co//. Avell. 99. 9 (CSEL, XXXV: 1, 443).

122. Akt. ephes. 449, pp. 150-54 Flemming-Hoffmann; ACO, Il, 3, 2, 88-89, 105-6. 123. Coll. Avell. 99. 9 (CSEL, XXXV: 1, 443); Marcell. com. a. 449. 2 (MGH: AA, XI, 83); H. Chadwick, ‘'The Exile and Death of Flavian of Constantinople,’’ JTAS n.s. 6 (1955), 17-34. Cf. infra, n. 145, for Chadwick's theory that Pulchetia conspited in the murder of Flavian. 124. Cyrill. Scyth. V. Exth. 20 (TU, XLIX: 2, 33). 125. Honigmann, ‘‘Juvenal,’’ p. 236, citing A&t. ephes. 449, pp. 104, 122 Flemming-Hoffmann. 126. ACO, Il, 1, 1, 191. 963-64. 127. On him T. Jalland, The Life and Times of St. Leo the Great (London, 1941).

128. ACO, Il, 1, 1, 175. 819; 2, 1, 33-34. 6; 4, 144-45. 108. 129. Ibid., pp. 9. 6 [Leo Ep. 27], 17. 4 [Ep. 36], also 2, 1, 24. 130. Ibid., pp. 24-33 [Ep. 28].

Iwo Empresses + 203

Leo dispatched a letter to the archimandrites of Constantinople, hoping to confirm support for Flavian among those who had subscribed to the condemnation of Eutyches.'3! Another letter went to Pulcheria.132 Her reputation, Leo explained, had invited him to address her: We have proof from many examples that God has established a great defense of His chutch in Your Clemency, and if the labors of priests have achieved anything in our time against the enemies of universal truth, it goes to your glory. For as you have learned from the Holy Spirit to do, you subordinate your potency in everything to Him by whose protection you reign.

Leo then mentioned Eutyches, urging Pulcheria to add to her glory by doing away with his erroneous teaching, and continued with a detailed exposition of orthodoxy, explaining that even as Nestorius erred in denying the divinity of Mary’s child, so Eutyches missed the mark in

denying Christ’s human nature. (The discussion was perhaps more technical than was normal for a theologian addressing a woman.)133 In conclusion, Leo declared his full confidence in the legates he had sent to the eastern court, and his hope that Pulcheria would labor ‘‘as is habitual for Your Piety’’ that the doctrine of Eutyches might not win acceptance.

This letter marked the appearance of an alliance between Leo and Pulcheria, an arrangement which bore fruit and which has earned for Pulcheria, in the words of a prominent scholar, the distinction of ‘‘une ‘Jeanne d’Arc’ de la papauté.'’434 The origins of this alliance

are obscure. To judge from Leo’s epistle of June 13th, the fame of Pulcheria’s intervention against Nestorius had reached the West, and her reputation alone may have been enough to suggest that she would serve Rome as she had Alexandria two decades earlier. Leo did, however, have connections in the East. He also corresponded again with the architmandrites of Constantinople,!3> and with Bishop Julian of Cods,136 who had attended the ‘‘trial’’ of Eutyches, signed the con131. Ibid. , 4. 11-12 [Ep. 32]; cf. Bacht, ‘‘Rolle,’’ pp. 226-27. 132. Ibid., pp. 12-15 [Ep. 31}; cf. 10-11 [Ep. 30], which Schwartz (sbid., 4,

xxi-xxli) proves to be a later, abbreviated version of Ep. 31. . 133. Schwartz, Prozess, p. 92. Leo slips near the end of his letter when he says that women too can concern themselves in the case of Eutyches because the Apostles’

creed sufficiently refutes him—and even women can comprehend the Apostles’ — 134. Goubert, ‘'Réle,”’ p. 321. 135. ACO, Il, 4, 25-26. 24 [Leo Ep. 51]. 136. Ibid., 6-8. 5 [Ep. 35], 16-17. 13 [Ep. 34], 23. 22 [Ep. 48].

204 + Theodostan Empresses

demnation, and then remained 1n Constantinople in close touch with the political situation there.!37 This man may well have informed Leo of Pulcheria’s position and encouraged him to cultivate her support. When Leo learned of the outcome of Ephesus II, and that his first letter had not even reached Pulcheria, he addressed her again on October 13, 449.138 The pope announced his rejection of Ephesus II and proposed a new council to meet in Italy, asking Pulcheria to plead with Theodosius to this effect. She was herself ‘‘commissioned”’ for this purpose ‘‘as a special legate of the Blessed Apostle Peter [sibi specialiter a beatissimo Petro apostolo legatione commissa].’’ Appatently Leo had solid teasons for thinking Pulcheria would intervene. About October, 449, Deacon Hilary also addressed Pulcheria, apologizing for his failure to visit Constantinople and to deliver the pope’s missive. Indeed, he had barely escaped the violence of Dioscorus and returned safely to Rome. He could only express the hope that despite

a temporaty setback Pulcheria ‘‘might not now abandon what she had willingly undertaken [in quibus libenter fecit inittum, relinquere non debet], but might preserve it with pious zeal and purpose stead-

fast in the faith.’’ These words hint at a Pulcherian intervention against Eutychianism, most likely in the initial attack of Eusebius of Dorylaeum.139 Again Pope Leo and his supporters were disappointed. For several

months after the letters of October, 449, they received no response from the East, perhaps because Leo’s letters failed once again to reach

their destination.'4° In his Bazaar of Heracleides Nestorius blamed Pulcheria for being unwilling to support Flavian or ‘‘to show het power in anything in internal affairs,’’!41 but Nestorius was far away in exile and harbored resentment. In reality, Pulcheria was unable to

act effectively because her enemy Chrysaphius still controlled the emperor, and Chrysaphius backed Eutyches. Hoping to counteract the eunuch’s power, Leo persuaded Valentinian III, his consort, Licinia Eudoxia, and his mother, Galla Placidia, early in 450 to write to the eastern emperor on behalf of Flavian and of Leo’s theological position.!42 Galla Placidia also wrote to her niece Pulcheria, asking 137. Schwartz, Prozess, p. 92; Jalland, Life, pp. 229-30. 138.. ACO, Il, 4, 23-25. 23 [Ep. 45]. 139. Ibid., pp. 27-28. 26 [Ep. 46]. Schwartz, Prozess, p. 93, suggests, to the contrary, that Pulcheria brought Flavian, Julian, and the archimandrites into communication with Leo. 140. ACO, II, 4, 28. 27 [Leo Ep. 61); Jalland, Life, p. 268 n. 28. 141. Nest. Herac/., p. 300 Nau. 142. ACO, Hl, 1, 1,.5-6. 2-4.

Iwo Empresses « 205

her to take action.'43 According to a reliable source,'44 Chrysaphius dictated the responses. In letters to his relatives addressed in early or mid-March, 450, Theodosius declared the case closed: truth had been vindicated and Flavian suitably punished.'4> At about the same time, Leo received his first answer from Pulcheria. It apparently declared her support for his cause but offered little immediate hope that the eastern court would change its policy. 146 It was shortly after this that extraneous forces again brought a decisive shift in Theodosian ecclesiastical policy. Like Eutropius four decades earlier, the eunuch Chrysaphius had provoked opposition

among the great men. Their propaganda attacked him as an avaticious creature who permitted the acquisition of high office through bribery.147 But Chrysaphius had also brought some of these great men to his side, including the powerful Nomos, '48 who as master of offices shared the eunuch’s ascendancy over Theodosius and supported his policies. One policy of Chrysaphius that appealed to men like Nomos was his effort to bridle the general Flavius Ardaburius Aspar. Son of Ardaburius, grandson of Plinta, and chief, therefore, of a formidable Alanic and German military dynasty, this man held a high command position as a magister militum praesentalis.49 The government needed 143. Idid., pp. 49-50. 14. Oost, Placidia, p. 289 n. 131, believes that the imperial personages composed these letters themselves.

144. Theod. Anag. Est. 350 (p. 99 Hansen). 145. ACO, II, 1, 1, 7-8. 5-7. These responses, which provide the last solid evidence that Chrysaphius was in power, unfortunately do not have dates. ACO, I], 1, 1, 5. 2, one of the letters to which they respond, was dispatched to the East after February 22 (Jalland, Life, pp. 268-69), so presumably Theodosius sent the responses dictated by Chrysaphius about mid-March at the earliest. Thus we acquit Pulcheria of Chadwick’s charge (supra, n. 123) that she ordered Flavian murdered, because by Chadwick's own admission (‘‘Exile,’’ pp. 26, 31-34) the bishop died in February at the latest.

146. Pulcheria’s letter has not been preserved, but Leo thanks her for it in ACO, Il, 4, 29. 28 [Ep. 60) dated March 17, 450. 147. Theod. Anag. Epzt. 354 (p. 100 Hansen); Marcell. com. ¢. 450. 3 (MGH: AA, XI, 83); Joh. Ant. frg. 191 (FHG, IV, 612); cf. supra, p. 62, for similar charges leveled against Eutropius. 148. W. Ensslin, RE, XVII (1937), 845-46, ‘‘'Nomos 1’’; PLRE, II, 785-86, ‘‘Nomus 1.’ For the man’s power and relationship with Chrysaphius see Prisc. frg. 13 (FHG, IV, 97); Thdt. Hp. 110 (III, 40 Azema); ACO, II, 1, 2, 20-22; and esp.

NT 24 with Jones, Later Roman Empire, 1, 203, 344, 369; and Demande, RE, suppl. XII (1970), 758-59, ‘‘Magister Militum,’’ on his successful efforts to exalt his office at the expense of the magistré militum. 149. O. Seeck, RE, II (1896), 607-10, ‘‘Ardabur 2’’; PLRE, II, 164-69, ‘‘Fi. Ardabur Aspar’’; Demandt, RE, suppl. XII (1970), 748-51, ‘‘Magister Militum’’;

supra, pp. 101-102.

206 « Theodostan Empresses

the troops at his disposal because in the last decade of the reign of Theodosius II three powerful enemies, the Persians under Yazdgard II (438-57), the Vandal kingdom of Gaiseric, and especially the Hun empire of Attila, simultaneously threatened the eastern Empire.'%° Still, Chrysaphius had to keep him in check if he and his civilian colleagues wished to control the government. Caught between two necessities, the eunuch demonstrated the power of improvisation, calling in the Isaurians, a half-civilized and warlike mountain people of southeastern Asia Minor.'>! It was their chieftain Flavius Zeno who defended Constantinople from Attila’s onslaught in 447.152 Zeno received the consulship as a reward and as confirmation of his place in Chrysaphius’ defensive plans, and in the next-years he held

the position of magister militum per Orientem,: while the power of Aspar declined. Innovation, however, and even statesmanship could not save a eunuch. Zeno apparently turned on his backer soon after he realized that Theodosius depended on Isaurian arms. In the summer of 449 he embarrassed Chrysaphius acutely by carrying off a wealthy woman

whom the eunuch had promised to one of Attila’s associates and martying her instead to one of his own Isaurian friends. When Theo-

dosius ordered the woman’s estates confiscated, making her less attractive as a bride, Zeno blamed Chrysaphius and demanded that the emperor deliver him over for punishment. Theodosius naturally refused to cooperate, so the general prepared to revolt, it was alleged, and to restore paganism—for Zeno and many of his following adhered

to the ancient religion.

The government took this threat so seriously that it readied powerful land and naval forces to strike down the rebel, but these 150. Stein, Histoire, 1, 291-93; Maenchen-Helfen, Huns, pp. 108-25; Thompson, ‘‘Foreign Policies,’’ pp. 58-75 (cf. supra, Chap. 4, n. 81). 151. Stein, Histoire, 1, 4, 64, 141-42, 238, 291; E. W. Brooks, ‘“The Emperor

Zenon and the Isaurians,’’ EHR 8 (1893), 209-38, esp. 211 on the character of the Isaurtans. 152. Prisc. frg. 8 (FHG, IV, 94). On this Zeno (not to be confused with the later emperor of the same name) see Demandt, RE, suppl. XII (1970) 742-43, 754, ‘‘Magister Militum’’; PLRE, H, 1199-1200, ‘‘Fl. Zenon 6’’; and esp. E. A. Thompson, ‘“The Isaurians under Theodosius lI,’’ Hermathena 68 (1946), 18-31.

153. Prisc. frg. 8 (FHG, IV, 94); Damasc. V. Isid. frg. 303 Zintzen; Aké. ephes. 449, p. 17 Flemming-Hoffmann; Thdt. Ep. 71, and cf. 65 (II, 154-56, 144-46 Azema); Demandt, RE, suppl. XII (1970), 742-43, ‘‘Magister Militum’”’

(Zeno magister militum per Orientem, securely dated 447). On the decline in Aspar’s power see Prisc. frg. 8 (FHG, IV, 94-95) with Thompson, ‘‘Isautians,”’ p. 22, and idem, A History of Attila and the Huns (Oxford, 1948), pp. 98, 102, 219-20.

Iwo Empresses + 207

forces never moved against the enemy, and therefore the ‘‘revolt’’ of Zeno looks suspiciously like a simple demand that the emperor dismiss Chrysaphius.'*4 The allegations against him recall those against

Paulinus and Cyrus, who had fallen by the same hand that now threatened Zeno. Although no source suggests it, Pulcheria may have intervened also, persuading her brother that the faith of Eutyches and Chrysaphius was wrong and dangerous. Angered in addition by the violence done to Flavian, Theodosius ordered the wealth of Chrysaphius confiscated and the eunuch himself exiled to an island. At once Pulcheria returned to assist her brother in governing the Empite.1» The fall of Chrysaphius apparently occurred between Match and

eatly July of 450.156 So far as is known, it did not bring a sudden

reversal in the ecclesiastical situation, but even so, the return of Pulcheria to her brother’s side proved to be crucial. It gave the empfess time to reinforce her position with military backing. The great general Aspar, whom Chrysaphius had declined to recall despite the ‘‘revolt’’ of Zeno, returned to favor soon after the eunuch’s fall ,157 and Pulcheria may well have sponsored him. On the barbarian question she had long since embraced the practical approach of her grandfather Theodosius the Great. It was she, of course, who had permitted the promotion of the Goth Plinta in 419, thus initiating the ascendancy

of Aspar’s military dynasty. By mid-July of 450 a new regime had formed in Constantinople, one with a strong Pulcherian stamp and with the might to overwhelm any opposition. 154. Prisc. fgg. 8, 12-14 (FHG, IV, 93-94, 96-98); Joh. Ant. frg. 199. 1 (FHG, IV, 613); Damasc. V. Isid. frg. 303 Zintzen; ROC, XIX, 127 (Nau’s extracts from the Life of Barsauma). Stein, Histoire, 1, 298, is properly cautious regarding Zeno’s alleged plans; Joh. Ant. (from Prisc.) indicates that not much came of it: tiv

rapaoKevnyv avEeBaAEtOo [sc. Theodosius]. |

155. Theoph. ¢.7. 5942 (pp. 101-2 de Boor); Niceph. Call. HE 14. 49 (PG, CXLVI, 1232); Zon. 13. 23, p. 44a. These sources confuse chronology and events hopelessly, but it is nonetheless likely that Theodosius exiled Chrysaphius and that Pulcheria returned to power before the emperor's death. Contrast Seeck, Geschichte, VI, 269; Stein, Hzstozre, I, 298, 570 n. 68; Goubert, ‘‘Réle,’’ pp. 315, 318. 156. See n. 145 supra for the terminus post quem. No terminus ante quem can be established other than the death of Theodosius, but it is likely that Chrysaphius had fallen by early summer, when Aspar was again influential (next note). On the other hand, letters Leo dispatched to Theodosius, Pulcheria, and the archimandrites of Constantinople on July 16 reveal no knowledge of any reversal in the East: ACO, Il, 4, 29-32 [Epp. 69-71]. 157. Prisc. frg. 14 (FHG, IV, 98) reports that about early summer of 450 Theodostus(!) married the daughter of Plinta to Attila’s Latin secretary Constantius in place of the girl Zeno had stolen (supra, p. 206; cf. Thompson, Asé/a, p. 123, for the date). The woman was, of course, a relative of Aspar, and her availability thus depended on him and reflected his strong position at court.

208 » Theodosian Empresses

On July 26, 450, the emperor Theodosius II, while hunting near Constantinople, injured his spine in a fall from horseback, and two days later he was dead.!58 For nearly a month thereafter Pulcheria reigned alone at Constantinople. None of her sovereign acts has been recorded, but presumably she led the people of the dynastic city ina public funeral for her brother, and she did take revenge on the fallen

Chrysaphius, having him handed over to the son of a victim for execution.'!59 Pulcheria was a child of the age, sharing its savagery as well as its enthusiasm for the religious life. Then, since the Romans could not abide 2 woman reigning alone, the empress took a husband, one with significant connections. Aspar himself already had a wife;!©° moreover, his barbarian race excluded him from participation in the Jasd/eiz. But a man of suitable age and character emerged from among the great general’s close associates (domestict), a tribune named Marcian of Illyrian or Thracian origin. '6 Marcian was a man of little substance, with no ancient aristocratic or

imperial blood. He was a Roman, however, and thus the bond of kedeia at once communicated eligibility for Jasi/eia. Soon after the wedding, on November 25, 450, Pulcheria herself conferred upon

Marcian the imperial diadem and paludamentum, and the troops acclaimed him Augustus at the Hebdomon.!® Although not without

precedent,'®3 coronation by an Augusta was highly unusual and 158. Theod. Anag. Epzt. 353 (p. 100 Hansen), and for the date sdez(?) in PG, LXXXVI: 1, 214-15 (cf. supra, n. 91); also Marcell. com. a. 450. 1 (MGH: AA, XI, 83); Evagr. 2. 1; Joh. Mal. 14 (pp. 366-67 Bonn); Cedren., pp. 602~3 Bonn; Chron. pasch. a. 450 (pp. 589-90 Bonn); Theoph. ¢.72. 5942 (p. 103 de Boor); Zon. 13. 24, p. 45c-d; Niceph. Call. HE 14. 58 (PG, CXLVI, 1271-72) on the death of Theodosius and the accession of Marcian. Reports that Theodosius had arranged the succession of Marcian before his death are, of course, not to be trusted.

159. Theod. Anag. Epit. 353 (p. 100 Hansen), where the position of the notice confirms (comtra Joh. Mal. 14 [p. 368 Bonn}) that the execution of Chrysaphius came between the death of Theodosius and the accession of Marcian. 160. PERE, Il, 164-165, *‘Fl. Ardabur Aspar.”’

161. Procop. B. Vand. 1. 4. 7; Theoph. a.m. 5943 (p. 104 de Boor) (domesticus), Chron. pasch. a. 457 (p. 592 Bonn) (aged fifty-eight at accession); Theod. Anag. Epit. 354 (p. 100 Hansen) (Illyrian); Evagr. 2. 1 (Thracian); in general W. Ensslin, RE, XIV (1930), 1514-29, ‘‘Marcianus 34’’; PLRE, Il, 714-15, *‘Marcianus 8.”’

162. See esp. Theoph., Zon., and the Chron. pasch. cited supra, n. 158. On the question of who conferted the imperial insignia I follow W. Ensslin, ‘‘Zur Frage nach der ersten Kaiserkr6nung durch den Patriarchen und zur Bedeutung dieses Aktes im Wahlzeremoniell,’’ BZ 42 (1943-49), 101-15, 369-72, contra (e.g.) Trettinger, Reichsidee, p. 8 with n. 7. 163. In an emergency Constantine’s daughter Constantia had created Vetranio Caesar in 350 to resist the usurper Magnentius: Philostorg. 3. 22; cf. 28, supra,

Chap. I, n. 90.

Two Empresses + 209

represented another case in which the eastern court assimilated an Augusta with her male counterparts, this time in the power to invest another with imperial dominion. As a condition of his elevation, Marcian pledged to respect Pulcheria’s vow of virginity.!54 No doubt he kept his pledge, but the marriage of a consecrated virgin was bound to raise eyebrows, especially when the virgin in question had based her claim to power in part on her celibate state. It is not surprising that Pulcheria’s detractors

contrived their own apple-of-discord romance to undermine her power and tarnish her reputation. In their version Theodosius presented the beautiful apple to Pulcheria, ‘‘the second Eve,’’ and she sent it to her illicit lover, the young and handsome Marcian, whom she would shortly marry and raise to the Jasileia.'© In an effort to limit such adverse reaction, the court ordered its mints to strike a commemorative marriage solidus, perhaps for distribution at the wedding or at Marcian’s subsequent coronation. On similar coins issued for the wedding of Valentinian III and Licinia Eudoxia (fig. 17), the emperor Theodosius had appeared as Pronubus between the bridal couple, drawing them together with his embrace to establish harmony in the marriage and, by extension, between the two imperial families thus joined in kedeza.'©6 On the solidus of 450, however, the Pronubus is Christ, identified by a nimbus of cruciform

type (fig. 18). He thus became the source of marriage harmony between Pulcheria, His own virgin ‘‘bride,’’ and her new husband Marcian. This tconography declared that Christ Himself sponsored the union and that it therefore should not provoke shock or unjustified suspicions.'®7 The solidi also emphasized that after two decades of conflict between Augustae and their male counterparts, Christ had at last restored harmony in the Jasi/eiz. The new rulers moved with deliberate haste to correct the ecclesiastical situation and restore harmony in the Empire as well. The new Augustus had little experience in dealing with bishops, but Pulcheria had engineered the defeat of Nestorius at Ephesus, had directed the 164. Evagr., Theoph., Zon. cited supra, n. 158. 165. F. Nau, ‘‘Histoire de Dioscore, Patriarch d’Alexandrie, écrit par son disciple Théopiste,’’ Journal asiatique ser. 10, 1 (1901), 242-51; also Joh. Ruf. Pler. 3 (PO, VIII, 14-15); Mich. Syr. 8. 9, 10. 2, 14 (II, 36, 38, 122 Chabot). 166. E. Kantorowicz, ‘‘On the Golden Marriage Belt and the Marriage Rings of the Dumbarton Oaks Collection,’’ DOP 14 (1960), 1-16, esp. 7-8. 167. H. Dressel, ‘*Erwerbungen des K6niglichen Miinzcabinets in den Jahren 1890-97 (antike Miinzen),’’ Zeitschrift fiir Numismatik 21 (1898), 249, suggests an interpretation along these lines.

;2*ey oss ee ga 5..se oahu 45, . SS Seely :SESSA oe Sis Pes ran , bene aeSISO, - yeyNihari, sw . sore pagal 8can * *Lvwes, mod Sa ‘s eee Sachin’

..£.. aaa oe ae hsSS“¢ >r. ;*, ne* eng SE ESI SS soa .¢ a3 oO